Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF KENT BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

ULLAPOOL PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Ullapool Pier: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 15 July and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Immigration

Mr. Montgomery: Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward his proposals for the compilation of a register of those entitled to enter the United Kingdom for settlement as dependants of immigrants already in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison: As we have said on previous occasions, the Government decided that changes in the immigration rules and in nationality law should take priority, and we do not foresee the opportunity for legislation on a register arising in the near future.

Mr. Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly unfair to keep the people of this country in ignorance of the total number of people around the world who are entitled to come and settle here legally? Does he not feel that there should be second thoughts on this matter and that the register should be introduced during the next parliamentary Session?

Mr. Raison: The objective of establishing the scale of potential immigration into this country remains, but we are considering whether there are more economical ways of achieving it.

Mr. Tilley: Does the Minister agree that, since corning to office, the Government have realised that this would be a bureaucratic nightmare, that it would involve a great deal of civil servants' time and that it would be racially discriminatory in its effect as it would deal almost exclusively with people coming from the Indian Subcontinent? Why does the hon. Gentleman not take this opportunity to say that the Government have scrapped the plan? Does he agree that this would be an easy and quick way of giving a little reassurance to the ethnic minorities in this country who feel so threatened by this and other proposals of the Government?

Mr. Raison: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is a fact that the economic and practical considerations of this matter have to be studied carefully.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Is the Minister aware that this type of question has appalling effects on black and Asian people who have a perfect right to live here? When shall we stop calling people immigrants? This is what they find so offensive and what they regard as showing lack of respect to them.

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend was entitled to ask that question.

Criminal Injuries (Compensation)

Mr. Alton: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to provide additional means of compensation for victims of violent crime.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The criminal injuries compensation scheme, which was revised and extended in 1979, provides compensation for personal injury directly attributable to violent crime. We have no plans for a further extension.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, in the light of events that have taken place in many of our cities in the last couple of weeks. will he extend the nature of the scheme to cover the violence that has occurred in which many small business men have lost their livelihoods? As the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 will not meet the full cost of replacing those businesses, the cost will have to be borne by the ratepayers. Does he agree that the Exchequer should go some way to meeting some of the costs involved?

Mr. Mayhew: The Riot (Damages) Act provides for compensation, subject to certain conditions, to be paid by the police authority out of the police fund to any person whose house, shop or building
has been injured or destroyed
or the contents of which have been
injured, stolen or destroyed
by people in the course of a riot.
That Act has remained in force for nearly 100 years. We are looking urgently to see whether payment under it can be speeded up, perhaps by means of interim payments. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said, but I cannot offer any commitment.

Miss Fookes: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider giving further aid to the National Association for


Victim Support Schemes—an organisation founded, incidentally, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving)—which uses volunteers to offer immediate assistance to victims?

Mr. Mayhew: As my hon. Friend knows, a great deal of very good work is done by the victim support schemes. We think it right to give some, albeit modest, support at the moment to the national association to which some 70 of these voluntary schemes are affiliated. I shall consider what my hon. Friend said. There is no proposal to withdraw the support that we are giving. I hope that we shall in time be able to give more, but I cannot make such a commitment.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Minister reconsider the application and implementation of compensation under the law from the police fund, as it is under financial constraint at the moment? What proposals has the Minister to offset the compensation that would be paid to legitimate claimants from that fund?

Mr. Mayhew: The principle always has been that compensation for damage caused through riot has been found from local resources. There has always been a fair amount to be said for that. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), we shall consider what has been said, but at the moment I cannot offer any commitment to extend the basis upon which compensation is paid.

Mr. Heddle: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 have to be made within 14 days of the event? In view of the magnitude of the events of the last few days, will he consider extending that period?

Mr. Mayhew: The deadlines are always interpreted in a sensible way. I should be surprised if any claim had ever been turned down because it was made within a reasonable period beyond the deadline. I note what my hon. Friend has said. I very much doubt whether in practice it proves to be a problem.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that several points raised in the exchanges have shown that many features of the Riot (Damages) Act need to be looked at? Will he give an assurance that all these points will be looked at? In particular, will the Government review the kind of damage in respect of which a claim may be made under the Act, not only the speed with which the claim might be met?

Mr. Mayhew: This gives rise not only to an important but to a tragically typical issue. I give the assurance that the matters that the hon. Gentleman has asked us to look at and consider will be considered.

Television Licence Fee

Mr. Ioan Evans: Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a statement on the application to increase the television licence.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Whitelaw): The BBC has not yet made an application to me for an increase in the licence fees. When I announced the last increase on 23 November 1979, I made it clear that the new fees would have to last for at least two years. I have no intention of increasing the fees before that two-year period has expired.

Mr. Evans: Does the Home Secretary agree that the BBC leads the world in the quality of its television and wireless broadcasting output, but that there is a need for additional financial support if the quality is to be maintained, and that it is wrong that the same licence fee should be charged to a millionaire as to a widowed mother or old-age pensioner? Will he consider the possibility of ensuring that, instead of or in addition to the licence, the BBC gets financial resources by some other method?

Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that the licence fee is the right method for raising finance for the BBC, and it has been widely supported throughout the House. A free television licence for all pensioner households would cost between £155 million and £170 million a year, and that would make considerable inroads on the money available to the BBC from licence fees.

Mr. Dormand: In coming to a conclusion on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need for some sort of levy when films are shown on television? Is there not the strongest moral and economic case for this, particularly as the Government have on several occasions said that the British film industry—which produces some of the best films in the world—warrants that kind of support?

Mr. Whitelaw: That matter can be considered, but I still maintain that the financing of the BBC should be done through the licence fee. These matters can come into those discussions.

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate the serious financial difficulties of the BBC, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Opposition would be extremely reluctant to support an increase in the licence fee unless some help could be found for retirement pensioners who rely so heavily upon television and are the least able to pay for any increase?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes; but the hon. Lady will also appreciate that the more help we gave at that end, the higher the licence fee would have to be for everybody else.

Illegal Immigrants

Mr. Murphy: Secretary of State for the Home Department what institutional arrangements exist for the detection of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Raison: The Home Office and the police work together to enforce the Immigration Act and to detect people here in breach of it.

Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are to implement a successful policy of firmly controlling immigration, an essential prerequisite is that we are successful in finding illegal immigrants and in stopping them coming?

Mr. Raison: I accept that we have to find illegal entrants to this country. Last year, 1,500 illegal entrants were detected and more than 1,100 were deported.

Mr. Tilley: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members and trade unions feel that, in spite of representations made to him and to the Secretary of State, the immigration authorities are still carrying out what is effectively a witch hunt against Filipino domestic and catering workers, in an attempt to show that they were illegal entrants when they came here long ago? Will he agree that on this issue it is time to call off the dogs?

Mr. Raison: Representations have been made to us about the Filipinos. We are fulfilling the policy that we have explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the trade unions. Unfortunately, large numbers of Filipinos have been detected, but in dealing with these cases we have exercised our compassionate discretion to a very wide degree.

Sentencing Policy

Mr. Hardy: Secretary of State for the Home Department if there is any evidence that courts have imposed prison sentences so far in the current year shorter than those imposed during the same period in 1979 and 1980; and what further action he proposes to take to encourage the award of shorter sentences or of alternatives to custodial sentences.

Mr. Whitelaw: The only national information so far available about sentencing this year relates to prison receptions. Receptions of sentenced prisioners as a whole are up, but those of prisoners sentenced to more than 18 months were appreciably lower in the first four months of 1981 compared with 1980 and slightly lower than in 1979. I continue to support the lead given by the Court of Appeal regarding custodial sentences for less serious offences.

Mr. Hardy: I welcome the extremely modest improvement that has taken place. But does the Home Secretary accept that much more positive action is now necessary? Will he consult as soon as possible the informed organisations to discuss alternative and additional steps which are now urgently required?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am constantly in touch with all these organisations about non-custodial sentences, whether through the work of the probation service, community service orders or the many other agencies which are trying to deal with offenders not in custody.

Mr. Wheeler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prison population now exceeds 44,000 in England and Wales? What steps does he contemplate taking to deal with this alarming situation? What reassurance will he give to the public that persons convicted of rioting, crimes of violence and robbery will continue to receive exemplary sentences?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that, since the prison officers' dispute, the prison population has risen substantially and is now more than 44,000. As for the future, I remain of the view that it is important that custodial sentences are imposed for serious offences. Those who need to be given custody for the protection of the public or because of the seriousness of their offences should receive custodial sentences. Equally, I believe that non-custodial sentences may be imposed for less serious offences. In many cases, in the discretion of the courts, a short custodial sentence may be at least as effective as, and in some cases more effective than, a longer one.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Home Secretary agree that the clear and repeated exhortations of successive Home Secretaries and Lord Chancellors to reduce sentence levels have not prevented the prison population from reaching a new record and dangerous level? Given that state of affairs, is it not time for him to introduce legislation to reduce the maximum length of sentences—or must prisoners go on hunger strike to negotiate improvements?

Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a rational consideration of the ways in which we should decide between custodial sentences for violent and serious offences and non-custodial sentences for others, knowing the very considerable interest that he takes in the subject, I do not think that the example he has given makes either his advocacy or my task any easier.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the various considerations that he put forward are matters for the individual trial judge to consider, and that now is not the right time to erode the independence of the judiciary by introducing legislation automatically to cut the sentences of those serving short terms of imprisonment after they have served one-third of their sentence?

Mr. Whitelaw: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is important that the discretion of judges and magistrates should not be eroded. Equally, the considerations that put forward in the parole review should be considered rationally by the House and the country. I am asking for a rational consideration of them.

Dr. Summerskill: To what level must the prison population rise before the right hon. Gentleman will consider introducing legislation to make some offences non-custodial and reducing the maximum prison sentence for certain other offences, rather than relying on exhortations to the courts, which do not appear to have been successful?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am surprised that the hon. Lady or anyone who has had responsibilities at the Home Office in the past should make impertinent suggestions about the size of the prison population, because they in their time did absolutely nothing to deal with prison buildings, prison maintenance or, indeed, anything to do with our prisons. It is no good people who did nothing when in power now coming along with ideas. I have said that I am most anxious to deal sensibly with this problem. I have made some proposals, and I am prepared to have them considered. However, I am entitled to say that I am the first Home Secretary for a long time who has made any effort to deal with the problem.

Police Control

Mr. Michael Brown: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to issue guidance to police divisions on policing methods in conditions of potential racial friction.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is already well aware of the need to ensure that policing methods adopted in various parts of the Metropolitan Police district are appropriate to local conditions.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the police are instructed to enforce the law equally in all parts of the metropolis, regardless of the proportion of ethnic minorities?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is within the operational discretion of the Commissioner. The answer is "Yes" to the question whether any general directions would ever be given to the Commissioner.

Mr. Hattersley: If the Scarman tribunal makes specific recommendations regarding what the question calls


policing methods in conditions of potential racial friction",
can we be certain that the Home Secretary will see that police forces inside and outside the metropolis accept those recommendations, and will he provide the resources to make sure that they can be carried out?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot tell what Lord Scarman will report, but, when he does report, I shall certainly consider most urgently with the Commissioner and with chief constables throughout the country the implications of that report. I am most anxious that we should deal with the problems of policing in many areas by means of that report. I undertake to do that.

Mr. William Shelton: Although the recent riots are probably not racial in origin, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time may be coming when the Government must consider the installation of riot police in different uniforms from those of the present police, so that any obloquy occasioned by quelling a riot would not fall on the regular police force?

Mr. Whitelaw: I very much hope that we can avoid setting up two police forces. I believe that would be a mistake and would lead to great difficulties. On the other hand, I have made it clear—and I was glad that the House as a whole agreed with me—that policemen involved in dealing with riots should be properly protected. I undertook to make sure that protective headgear would be provided. I am glad to say that between 1,700 and 1,800 helmets are now available. Three hundred helmets were used in Manchester last night, and they proved particularly effective. That is a matter of importance.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the Home Secretary realise that his original answer to this question was totally inadequate? The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will not change his policing methods simply as a result of the kind of blandishments that have been used in the past. Yet every indication, particularly in Handsworth, where the chief constable of the West Midlands made a change about four years ago, shows that changes in police methods are crucial in getting racial peace and harmony in the area. If that had been done five years ago, we should probably not have had the trouble in Brixton.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that for one moment. I have great confidence in the Commissioner. I am entitled to discuss these matters with him when Lord Scarman reports. By so doing, I believe that together we can reach a sensible solution. I do not accept in any way the aspersion on the Commissioner which I think was implied in the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In any guidance that my right hon. Friend may send out to anyone, will he invite the elected members of local authorities to avoid at all costs stirring up any more racial difficulties at this moment for the police service? Is he aware that, whatever the causes and whatever role race, unemployment or anything else may play in these tragic circumstances, it does not help if elected members of local police authorities go into areas and suggest that those arrested for breaches of the peace should be released before they are brought before courts?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is enormously important that chief officers of police, in carrying out their operational duties and the operational requirements put upon them, should be absolutely free of

political control. I wholly deplore any idea, as would seem to be implied, that political control had been exercised on chief constables. It would be against our constitution and against everything that I understand that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have always felt. The operational control of the police is a matter for the chief constables concerned. I stand firmly by that, and I hope that their officers will be given full support in the difficult tasks that they have to perform at this time.

Vagrancy Act

Mr. Dubs: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the provisions of the Vagrancy Act dealing with begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the provisions of the Vagrancy Act dealing with begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the provisions of the Vagrancy Act dealing with begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The Select Committee on Home Affairs in its recent report on these provisions recommended that the three principal offences should be retained, at least for the time being. The Government agree with the Select Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee was divided on the issue? Will he confirm that about 200 people are sent to prison every year for offences that stem directly or indirectly from these provisions in the Vagrancy Act? Is it not time that we had another look at the laws under which some of the most disadvantaged in our society are punished and sent to gaol in this way?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member is correct when he says that the Select Committee was divided. However, I note that his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) voted with the majority on nearly every occasion. The fact that a Select Committee is divided does not necessarily make invalid its recommendations. Not many people are sentenced to imprisonment under these provisions. We all look forward to the day when these provisions can be repealed. I agree with the findings of the Select Committee, which supports the views of the police, in particular, who find that there is some value in rare cases in retaining these offences.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that approximately 100 people are sent to prison direct and that a further 100 are sent as a result of failure to pay fines?

Mr. Mayhew: That is correct. The figures are about 200 every year. The figures for immediate imprisonment for 1979 are: 15 for sleeping rough, 84 for the begging offence, and about 44 for being on enclosed premises. The enclosed premises offence has little do with vagrancy, as the Select Committee made clear. It has to do with those who enter premises with criminal intent.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that the offences of begging and sleeping rough are fundamentally objectionable in that they punish and label as criminals


those who are affected by the problems of homelessness and poverty? Will he accept the majority report—the unanimous report—of the Home Office Select Committee and now repeal them, or at least make them non-imprisonable offences?

Mr. Mayhew: The Government are prepared to consider the Select Committee's recommendation to take away the power of imprisonment. However, there is a difficult problem here. I adopt the words of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), which were as follows:
The problem of our society is to deal with behaviour which may not be culpable but which creates a public nuisance where the offender refuses to use social agencies which exist to help him.
This is a difficult social problem. We are not satisfied that now is the time to take away these offences from the statute book.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Minister of State recollect that just two questions ago the Secretary of State said that he did not want custodial sentences for minor offences? Does he recollect that he has in the Select Committee report a unanimous recommendation that sleeping rough and begging should cease to be offences which carry an imprisonment sentence? Will the Government make up their mind on this matter before next Wednesday evening so that we can have an amendment which does the modest job of making the two offences non-imprisonable?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that everyone who pays attention to the problems of penal policy wants to see as few people in custody as is consistent with the proper protection of the public. These matters do not lend themselves to easy or slick solutions. I have said that we shall consider what the Select Committee has recommended. I mean that, but that is all that I am able to say.

Coroners' Courts

Mr. Meacher: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to change the functions of coroners' courts.

Mr. Raison: We have reviewed the coroners' system in the light of public concern about one or two recent inquests. As I said on 1 June in reply to my hon. And learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), my right hon. Friend has already accepted certain recommendations of the Brodrick committee relating to deaths in custody and the selection of coroners' juries. He does not, however, consider that at the present time any further changes are necessary.

Mr. Meacher: Does the Minister accept that coroners are not the right persons to conduct inquiries into killings or deaths with a high degree of political sensitivity? Relevant evidence, including police investigators' reports, is normally withheld, in many recent cases coroners have clearly been biased and verdicts of misadventure are treated as acquittals, as though there had been a trial when in fact there has not. Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the most serious cases are heard in the High Court or before an impartial police ombudsman?

Mr. Raison: I am aware that in one or two recent cases the view has been expressed that the inquest was an unsuitable vehicle, but we must bear in mind that it has

a limited function, which is to ascertain the cause of death. It is not its function to attribute blame. There are other methods of inquiry available, including criminal proceedings. It is open to anyone who believes that he is aggrieved by an inquest verdict to appeal to the High Court by or with the authority of the Attorney-General, under the provisions of section 6 of the Coroners Act 1887, for the inquest verdict to be set aside and a fresh inquest ordered.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are some Conservative Members who will be disappointed with his answer to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)? Does he appreciate that there is a considerable amount of concern about the function of coroners' courts? It is not enough to say that some of the recommendations of the Brodrick committee have been implemented, because nearly all of them have not been implemented. The report of the Brodrick committee is now nearly 10 years old. Will my hon. Friend consider taking rather more drastic action than he is proposing to take?

Mr. Raison: I believe that the concern that has been expressed has been about one or two cases only. They represent only a minute fraction of the deaths investigated by coroners and the number of inquests held in a year.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that if, like me, he had attended the inquest on the New Cross fire he would agree that that inquest did enormous damage to the processes of justice and to race relations? Is he further aware that where serious allegations are being made against the police it is inappropriate that a coroner should preside? Coroners rely heavily upon the police and Co not have the sort of experience that a High Court judge might have, as Lord Scarman is now exhibiting, of conducting proceedings even-handedly? Does he accept that it is more appropriate in those cases that the Home Secretary should have the power to bring in a judge instead of leaving the issues to coroners?

Mr. Raison: High Court judges already have the powers of coroners. Fundamental changes in the procedure of coroners' courts would be needed to enable judges to act as coroners. Legislation would be required to enable a judge to take over from a coroner who had already opened an inquest, which he usually does within a very short time of the death. I am not satisfied that such changes would be justified. The hon. Gentleman referred to the New Cross inquest. The coroner is an independent judicial officer and I have no authority to comment on the way in which he carries out the duties of his office within the framework of the law.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that it is no reflection whatsoever on coroners in general or any particular coroner to suggest that there are some cases where they are not best suited to carry out a politically sensitive or a highly publicised case, and that the consideration that we want the Government to consider is whether one can keep the inquest system but allow the Secretary of State, in those suitable cases, to appoint a judge, perhaps not even a High Court judge, as against a coroner to do exactly the same job that otherwise would be done by the coroner?

Mr. Raison: Apart from the general principle, there are a number of severe practical problems about following


that course. One of those problems would be to decide in which cases the Home Secretary, or whoever it was, would come to such a decision.

Prison Population

Mr. Thomas Cox: Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population in England and Wales on 25 June.

Mr. Mayhew: About 44,600.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that his reply reveals that the prison population is now at an all-time high? Does he appreciate that because of the lack of work, the lack of association and the overcrowding that exists in our prisons, the prison system could explode into the most appalling violence at any time? When will he start to take note of what prison governors and the Prison Officers Association are saying about drastic reduction in the prison population?

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the prison population is at, or is nearly at, a record level. It is a serious matter, as my right hon. Friend has made abundantly clear over quite a long time. That is why the Government are considering what ways there may be, consistent with maintaining the proper protection that the public need and deserve, to reduce the prison population. It is a far from easy task. However, we are considering ways in which that can be done. The present level of the prison population represents a potential danger.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to say what percentage of those now in prison have been in prison before?

Mr. Mayhew: I shall have to write to my hon. Friend about that. I do not know whether the figures are held centrally but I expect that they are. I shall write to him, if I may.

Mr. Soley: Does not this terrifyingly and dangerously high figure confirm that the Home Secretary's desire that shorter sentences should be imposed for non-dangerous offences by means of advice to the courts is not being realised and cannot be realised, partly because the courts should not be expected to act on such advice? Responsibility lies with the House to legislate for shorter sentences or to introduce a public prosecutor system that might take us towards that end. The responsibility lies here with us. When will we act on it?

Mr. Mayhew: There are several separate considerations in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, it is not for my right hon. Friend to give advice to the courts and he does not do so. Such advice as has been given to the courts has come from the Lord Chief Justice. It is too early yet to ascertain what effect the judgments in the Court of Appeal in the cases of Upton and Bibi will have. As to whether we go into a system of public prosecutors, much depends on the review of the Royal Commission's recent report and on the opinions that are expressed. That is a separate issue.

Replica Firearms

Mr. Hill: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory provisions which govern the sale of replica firearms.

Mr. Whitelaw: There are no specific statutory controls on the sale of replica firearms.

Mr. Hill: As it was only a few weeks ago that Her Majesty the Queen had such a narrow escape from serious injury, is it not time that the House, with all the co-operation that I think that we would get within the Chamber, brought forward an emergency Bill to cover replica firearms and prevent these weapons being sold and turned into lethal weapons?

Mr. Whitelaw: It was a most unfortunate incident, but I do not think that we should exaggerate it and pretend that the Queen had a narrow escape from serious injury since, at the time of the incident, the gun that was used could not fire a bullet. It is important to keep the matter in proper perspective. I said that we would examine urgently whether a new Bill on replica firearms should be introduced following the incident at the Trooping the Colour. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) have both agreed that they will consider the possibility of producing such a Bill. I am grateful to them. There are difficulties. For example, there is the problem of differentiating between realistic imitations of lethal weapons—which are serious—and models that are harmless children's toys—which are not. The problem is difficult but I hope that we can make progress. I should not like to exaggerate the seriousness of the position from which we are starting.

Royal Palaces (Security)

Mr. Farr: Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to improve security at Royal palaces.

Mr. Whitelaw: The arrangements are kept under continuing review. In consultation with the authorities at Buckingham Palace, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is paying particular attention to the physical security measures there.

Mr. Farr: Can my right hon. Friend look into the antique security measures in the grounds of Buckingham Palace, which cannot be satisfactory, in view of the ease with which a number of intruders spent the night there recently? Can he see whether electronic surveillance methods which would be manned for 24 hours a day could be adopted there at an early date?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong of me to start to express views on the security measures that are made. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that it would be wrong to describe those measures as antique in any way. Proper measures are taken and the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to make sure that they are so taken will be fulfilled.

Violent Crime

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage crimes of violence have increased since 1960.

Mr. Mayhew: The total number of offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1980 was over 500 per cent. higher than the number recorded in 1960. That increase


corresponds to an average annual rise in those recorded offences of about 10 per cent. a year. The rate of increase on the more serious offences, such as wounding and endangering life, was rather less—4 per cent. a year.

Mr. Taylor: Is not that one of the most frightening and alarming statistics presented by the Government in recent times? Does the Minister consider that present policies and deterrents are likely to contain or reverse that trend? Has he any plans to reverse the frightening increase in the number of crimes of violence involving the use of firearms?

Mr. Mayhew: As my hon. Friend says, that is a deplorable increase. It is a measure of the decline in the respect for law that has taken place over the last 20 years. There is some hope for encouragement in the statistics in that the number of offences of violence against the person recorded in 1980 was only 2 per cent. higher than in 1979, whereas the average over the past 20 years has been an increase of 10 per cent. That slowing down appears to be reflected in the first quarter of this year. We may reasonably suppose that that reflects what we have done in Government to increase the numbers of police and to increase their morale.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister tell the house what is the increase in non-violent crimes?

Mr. Mayhew: I regret that I cannot do so without notice. I do not doubt that the number has risen—[Interruption.] It would be a great help if, from the Opposition Benches, we had greater support for the efforts of the Government in the last two years to increase respect for the law, to encourage the police and to give them every support in the dangerous task that we ask them to do.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that an increasing proportion of violent and anti-social offences are being committed by juveniles who become the vicious criminals of tomorrow? Is it the Government's intention at an early stage to introduce legislation to give the courts powers to inflict heavy fines on the parents of youngsters convicted of such crimes? Does he not agree that that might make a contribution to making people sit up and take notice that law and order are increasingly in danger?

Mr. Mayhew: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of parental responsibility for the actions of their children. I believe that that has been increasingly neglected recently. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". We hope at an early stage to introduce legislation that will bring home to parents in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend that they have a real responsibility that they will be made to fulfil.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Michael Brown: Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend be able to consider further today the question of the maintenance of law and order? Does she accept thet, with the bandwagon effect of violence that has continued to spread during this week, it might be necessary for the Government to recognise that the use of water cannon in addition to CS gas might be necessary to prevent the arson, looting and unprecedented attacks on the police recently?

The Prime Minister: I am wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and his desire fully to support the police and to see that they have every facility available that they need.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: They have to, with policies like the right hon. Lady's.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fully endorsed the action of the use of CS gas on Merseyside. We are now considering what other equipment the police may need. The use of water cannon is certainly not ruled out.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time to tell us today what is the logic in spending £5,000 million on Trident missiles to protect us against the Russians, who have not as yet smashed one shop window, while our cities are being flattened by gangs of marauding unemployed youths and she is not spending an extra tuppence ha'penny to find work for them?

The Prime Minister: That is an absurd question for a person who has sat behind a Government who put in hand Chevaline and who, during all of their period of office, believed in an independent nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there has been any indication from the Opposition about the level of pay settlements that they regard as compatible with reducing unemployment during the next 12 months, or are they just willing to say that unemployment is bad but they will encourage pay settlements to make it worse?

The Prime Minister: I have seen no evidence from the Opposition that they wish people to reduce pay settlements as a means of getting more jobs. There is a direct relationship. Higher pay settlements mean fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for the young.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the Prime Minister consider today that, however bad they may be, prison conditions in Northern Ireland are considerably superior to those in England and Wales where there is now a record number of prisoners and record overcrowding, with 17,000 prisoners—two and three to a cell which was built for one in Victorian times—who are often locked up for 23 hours a day? Will she now take steps to reduce the prison population and improve conditions, or would she suggest that prisoners in England and Wales should involve themselves in a hunger strike so that they can negotiate with the Government?

The Prime Minister: The shortage of prison accommodation in Britain has not suddenly come about. The hon. Gentleman's Government were as much responsible for the present state of prison accommodation as are this Government. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the conditions in the Maze are among the best in the whole of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken every possible prudent step to reduce the prison population.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since, as every hon. Member who has recently visited a country in which there is real and grinding poverty will attest, there is no necessary or convincing correlation between poverty and the rioting and looting that we have had in the last week, should we not seek an explanation for those deplorable events in some of the seditious, sociological claptrap that is passed on in our schools as education?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are many poor societies that are scrupulously honourable in everything they do and would not sink to some of the things that we have seen in Merseyside in recent days. I agree with the leader in the Daily Mirror headlined:
A spree of naked greed".
The leader went on:
The latest night of mob violence in Liverpool had nothing to do with the city's problems of bad housing and unemployment.
It was a spree of naked greed.
I believe that the reasons go very much deeper and that such occurrences are not merely caused by poverty, as some people suggest.

Mr. Heffer: Stupid woman.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Lady is fully aware that all of us in the House condemn looting and violence in the way in which it has occurred, and we do so in the strongest possible terms. Has she had the chance to study last night's debate on higher education and its relevance to these matters? In the light of this situation, is it the intention of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues to proceed with the proposed reduction in the number of university places, which is an act of barbarism? Will she not at least tell the House and the country that she will put that policy into reverse?

The Prime Minister: I must take issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he suggests that the latest reductions in provision for university education—which total about 3 per cent.—have any relevance to the present situation. Just a few moments ago, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said that crime had increased by about 500 per cent. since 1960. But, equally, university places have increased enormously since that time. We have had the whole of the Robbins expansion. There is just no connection between the two.

Mr. Foot: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that there are more than 10 engineering places in Japanese universities for every one in Britain? Does she not think that that has some relevance to economic performance? Do the Government really intend to cut 20,000 further places, which will happen under their proposals for dealing with the higher education programme?

The Prime Minister: The latest programme of the UGC, decided by the UGC, provides for an overall increase in science and technology places. In that respect, the right hon. Gentleman's point is fully met. In addition, there are a considerable number of places in polytechnics, and the polytechnics were meant to take charge of vocational training to a very much greater extent than the universities.

Sir Hugh Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people outside the House of Commons feel that we are not paying sufficient attention to the immediate problem of law and order? Some Opposition Members

seem to be condoning violence—[Interruption]. To suggest that people are rioting in Liverpool because there are more places for higher students in Japan is quite ridiculous. Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that many people feel that we are not taking seriously enough the question of support for the police? The fact is that once the State loses the monopoly of violence, other people will take it. That is the issue today, and it is felt that the Government are not exhibiting sufficient will to ensure that law and order are maintained.

The Prime Minister: I hope that no hon. Member, certainly no Conservative Member, either condones or excuses violence on the scale that we have recently seen. It is totally inexcusable and unjustifiable, and I am sure that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members agree.
The Government, especially my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, have given every support to the police—I reiterate that—as well as our thanks for the way they carry out their arduous and dangerous duties. We have also increased the numbers in the police force in England and Wales by about 6,000, and thank goodness we did. Morale is good and the police are carrying out their duties superbly. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must support them to the hilt. In addition, we must discover the causes of this violence and try to bring home to each and every citizen his duty to obey the law.

Mr. Leighton: Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Leighton: Does the right hon. Lady accept that it was entirely predictable, and predicted, that if society sent half our younger generation straight from school to the dole queue it would cause grave damage to our social fabric? Does she also agree that if society rejects those young people and says that it has no use for them, they are likely to reject society and act in an anti-social way? Unless the Government provide our young people with employment, they will create a situation in which the police will be asked to contain the impossible.

The Prime Minister: It is because our young people are unemployed that we give priority to the youth opportunities programme. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in the area where violence and rioting has occurred a good deal of it has been carried out by children of school age, some of them aged between 9 and 16. That has nothing whatever to do with the dole queue.—[Interruption.] Of course we try to provide as many jobs as possible, but the history of labour relations in that area does not encourage firms to go there—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but it does not. That is why we must put so much emphasis on the provision of, and increase in, small businesses.

Mr. Heffer: Stupid woman.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the recent breakdown of law and order in some of our cities calls for a more positive reaction than the supply of helmets to the police? Will she consider the reintroduction of corporal punishment for under-18-year-olds for a trial period of three years?

The Prime Minister: We have no plans to do that. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is


looking at all possible means of assistance to the police by way of equipment. We are also looking at any changes in the law that may be necessary. We are also looking at ways of getting compensation as quickly as possible to those whose properties have been gutted and whose businesses have been destroyed.
We shall also consider everything we can to try to improve the general environment in the area. The irony is that this has occurred in an area where a great deal of money has been poured in through urban programmes. A lot of money has also gone into housing, housing which many of us would like to live in. We must use the money better and in a much more humane way than it has been used in the past.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does not the right hon. Lady accept that the policies that she is pursuing are ripping away the fabric of our society? Is she aware that she has been protrayed as the biggest vandal in the country in that the Government are regularly mugging the British taxpayer? There was another example of that yesterday in respect of the gas industry. Does not the right hon. Lady see any connection between that and her portrayal of Top Cat—people do watch television?

The Prime Minister: That is a ridiculous and absurd question. No one is more anxious to get genuine jobs than I am, but nothing is more irritating than people who have jobs striking for more pay—[Interruption.]—knowing full well—[Interruption.]

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The right hon. Lady has created a million more unemployed.

The Prime Minister: I am concerned about unemployed—[Interruption.]—and if hon. Members will listen—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is impossible for me to hear the Prime Minister. Hon. Members must listen, even to points that they do not wish to hear.

The Prime Minister: I shall finish the sentence that I started. Those who are frequently on strike for more pay know full well that, in the absence of increased production, more pay can be given only at the expense of someone else. They are actually pre-empting for themselves the money which could otherwise be used to provide jobs for others. It is Labour Members who do not always wish, in practice, to increase jobs in this country.

Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the contributions made during questions to her on this subject have been more closely connected with the Warrington by-election—[Interruption.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Hysterical men, terrified of what is happening. [Interruption.]

Sir Frederick Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. A right hon. Member is asking a question.

Mr. Peyton: May I repeat what I said? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the contributions made to her during this question session have been more closely related to the Warrington by-election than to any desire on the part of those who have made them to make a positive contribution to a serious and grave problem?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The questions have certainly not been directed towards providing new genuine jobs. That can be done only by providing goods and services at a price that people in this country and overseas will pay. No amount of yowling and scowling will get over that fact.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister attacked on three occasions the people—

Hon. Members: Bogus.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he can only raise with me a point of order and not a point that he wishes to register. It must be a point of order connected with "Erskine May", or our Standing Orders, on which I can rule.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter over which you have power. The Prime Minister referred three times to the people of Liverpool. She attacked them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that I did not call the hon. Gentleman earlier in Question Time, but he must take his turn with everybody else.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not care whether you call me or not, but you did not call any hon. Member from Liverpool.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remark is a very great help and I shall bear it in mind.

Sir Frederick Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the point of order of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I am waiting to see whether it is a genuine point of order. We shall see.

Mr. Heffer: In that case, Mr. Speaker, why have you stopped me every time I have tried to make my point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. It is because a point of order to me cannot possibly include criticism of another right hon. or hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman's point of order to me must be a point of order and not an attack on anyone else.

Mr. Heffer: May I put this point of order to you, Mr. Speaker? Is it legitimate for a right hon. Member to attack communities and the constituents of other hon. Members without those hon. Members being allowed to say one word in defence of their constituents?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that my original presumption was correct.

Sir Frederick Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order, Sir Frederick Burden.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must request the hon. Member to resume his seat. I am taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden).

Sir Frederick Burden: Do you agree, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I am taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Gillingham. I shall return to the hon. Member for Walton.

Sir Frederick Burden: Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps there would be less hooliganism on the streets, if there were less frequently—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me either.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister attacked the city and people of Liverpool. There are plenty of hon. Members from Liverpool—I am not talking only about myself. Why was not one hon. Member from Liverpool called to refute the Prime Minister's allegations?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there are several hon. Members for Liverpool seats.

It so happens that I did not call them this afternoon. They had been called earlier when the Liverpool issue had been very much to the fore during questions to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) does not represent a Liverpool seat.

Mr. Speaker: I did not call only the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). Other Liverpool Members were called.

Mr. Faulds: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that a certifiable condition was a debarment from membership of the House. Is there not a case for the House collectively to examine the lunatic utterances of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) both inside and outside the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Making a personal attack under the guise of a point of order is very unfair.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JuLY—Remaining stages of the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords].
Progress on remaining stages of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 14 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motions on the Films (Quotas) Order and on the Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order.
Proceedings on the Friendly Societies Bill.
WEDNESDAY 15 JULY—Further progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Consideraton of Lords amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill and the Criminal Attempts Bill.
THURSDAY i6 JULY—A debate on recent outbreaks of civil disorder in Great Britain, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 17 JULY—Motions on the following Northern Ireland orders: Industrial Investment (Amendment), Diseases of Animals, which is a consolidation order, and Appropriation (No. 2).
MONDAY 20 JULY—Debate on the preliminary draft general Community budget for 1982, and on the draft rectifying budget No. 1 for 1981.
The relevant Community document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motions on European Community documents Nos. 7305/81, 7306/81 and 7825/81 on the steel industry.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to the debate proposed on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) being held on Thursday next week. We certainly wish—I am sure that this will be fully within the ambit of the discussion—to discuss the general causes of deprivation which prevail in these areas and to debate those matters on that occasion. I am grateful, however, to the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the debate.
I emphasise to him, particularly as we are reaching what is possibly the end of this period of Parliament and time may be getting short, that we wish to have a further major debate on unemployment in view of the figures still to be announced before the House rises for the recess. We therefore believe that the Government should provide a further day to discuss that, particularly as the Opposition have had to provide many of our Supply days to discuss this major domestic question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that.
I wish to put three further matters to the right hon. Gentleman, some of which I have had to mention before. First, I hope that he will provide time to debate the cutting of the BBC external services. There is strong feeling in various parts of the House about this, and certainly it should be debated and decided by the House.
Secondly, there is the statement on the Vale of Belvoir for which I have asked on several previous occasions. The Secretary of State for the Environment should be coming

to the House to make a statement on that. He has had the report for about six months. It is a matter of great importance and the House will clearly wish to know at the earliest possible date, certainly before we depart for the recess, what are the Government's proposals on this.
Finally, there is the matter that I have mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman on five or six previous occasions and on which we have not had a satisfactory answer. I refer to a debate on the Brandt report. The country has a right to know what proposals, if any, and what attitude, if any, the Government have on this matter. We therefore ask once again that the right hon. Gentleman should commit himself to a debate on that in Government time before we depart for the recess.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about the debate proposed for next Thursday. I am certain that the House will agree that it is right to hold that debate next week. I think that the exchange this afternoon make that all the more obvious.
Having provided that day, as I am certain is right, that clearly limits still further the scope for providing Government time for other debates. I have tried to help the right hon. Gentleman on unemployment. We have now provided two days in the past six months and he has provided a number of other days. I do not think that there will be another one in Government time before we rise for the recess.
I am well aware of the representations that the right hon. Gentleman has made to me about a further debate on the Brandt report. I can only say that if there is time to arrange one, I shall naturally wish to do so. At this stage, I cannot judge that, any more than I can in relation to the important matter of the BBC external services. I know that that, too, is important but I do not think that it is of the highest priority, at any rate in relation to or as compared with the debate next Thursday or perhaps the Brandt report, but I have certainly noted the point made on previous Thursdays and again today.
With regard to the Vale of Belvoir, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement to the House just as soon as he has reached his final conclusions. He will, of course, announce those conclusions to the House. I do not think that that will happen next week. I note that the right hon. Gentleman would like it to happen before we rise. I can only say that my right hon. Friend will make that statement as soon as he is in a position so to do.

Mr. Foot: I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are responsible for any congestion of business at this time of the year. They must take that responsibility. I repeat that in my opinion it would be unthinkable for the House of Commons to depart and the Government to go away never having given any statement or possibility of debate on any of the questions connected with the Brandt report. Two or three important conferences will take place before the House meets again after the summer. The Government would have to take the responsiblity of denying the House the opportunity for debate if that were the position.
I also emphasise that mass unemployment is of such a scale that, as I have said from the beginning of the Session, the Government should have made provision for unemployment on a scale greater than anything we have known since the end of the war to be discussed every


month when the figures are published. The Government will have the responsibility for providing the time when these matters are discussed again. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government that the events in some of our cities in recent weeks make that demand imperative.

Mr. Pym: I do not accept that the Government are responsible for pressure of business at this time. I have given a number of Government days in response to the right hon. Gentleman's requests, and gladly and rightly so. On each occasion, that consumes a single day. No Leader of the House can go on for ever producing more and more days. The right hon. Gentleman could not do so when he was in this position and I cannot do so now. I have tried, and I think that I have been forthcoming and indeed generous in the days that I have provided. I make no complaint, but I think it a little unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to think that in some extraordinary way the supply of days is endless. There is a further Supply day left to him. It is entirely up to the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition to choose what is debated on that day. I have been as forthcoming as I can, but I am afraid that I cannot produce days which simply do not exist.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 382 on the subject of smaller businesses?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide time to debate the Smaller Businesses (Ministerial and Other Functions) Bill introduced by the honourable Member for Harrow West, providing for more effective coordination of the Government's services for smaller firms.]
Is he aware that it is signed by 109 hon. Members and calls for a debate on the need to co-ordinate services to smaller firms? The Bill to which it relates would allow the House to debate the fact that this country, uniquely, has no centralised co-ordination of Government resources to help small firms.

Mr. Pym: I do not think that I can provide any time especially for that purpose, but it would be for my hon. Friend to ascertain whether it might be an appropriate subject for discussion on the Appropriation Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been seeking to ask a question. There is a statement to come before we reach the main business.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motion 520 on Turkey?
[That this House, recognising that in the two years before the military takeover in Turkey last year over 5,000 people were murdered by terrorists and that the whole fabric of the country was close to disintegration, warmly welcomes the invitation given to President Evren to attend the Royal Wedding; and wishes both the President and his Government well in their efforts to give the Turkish people a truly democratic constitution and government.]
Is he aware that it stands in the names of more than 60 of his right hon. and hon. Friends and expresses the amazing view that the military dictatorship in Turkey is to be welcomed because for two years before it occurred there was total disintegration of the fabric of that country?

If that is those hon. Members' view of democracy, do we assume that they see this as the way out as the disintegration of this country's social fabric continues under the Conservative Government?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has expressed sympathy with the motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am afraid that there will not be time next week for a debate on that matter.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As next Thursday's debate on law and order will concern the whole House and as it will be only one day and the many hon. Members whose constituencies have been directly affected will take up a good deal of the debate, will it be possible to have an experiment on that day with one or two hours of five-minute or 10-minute speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock?

Mr. Pym: I shall be quite content with that proposal if the House wishes it, but that is for discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a debate soon on early-day motion 521, deploring the Prime Minister's shabby treatment of the ambulancemen?
[That this House deplores the shabby treatment meted out to ambulancemen by the Prime Minister who, on 22 August 1978, instructed the hon. Member for West Derbyshire to write the following letter on her behalf to two ambulancemen, Messrs. Wilton and Rowe:
'Dear Gentlemen,
I am sorry for the delay in replying on Mrs. Thatcher's behalf to your letter of 28 July.
In all the comments she made during the Firemen's strike, Mrs. Thatcher linked her remarks not just to the firemen, but to what she, and you, call 'Emergency Services'. All three deserve to have their pay negotiation put outside the arena of industrial dispute by being given firm and automatic linkage to national price or wage rises.
Mrs. Thatcher agrees with you about this.
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Parris
Private Office of the Leader of the Opposition';
and notes that, because of the present Tory Government's wages policy, ambulancemen are now being offered a miserable six per cent., which is a wage-cut in real terms, with inflation still running at 11·7 per cent. because of the failure of the Tory Government's economic policy; deplores the fact that a qualified ambulanceman, after 24 years' service, can take home as little as £59 per week; and calls on the Prime Minister to intervene personally to stop this exploitation of an important group of workers employed in emergency service, and to stand by her 1978 declaration.]
In view of the Prime Minister's 1978 declaration that the ambulancemen should be treated as an emergency service and should have their wages linked to national wage levels or to price increases, why are the Government now imposing a 6 per cent. wages policy while inflation is still running at nearly twice that figure? Does that not expose the Government as a crowd of deceitful twisters?

Mr. Pym: Of course, the Government have implemented the Clegg proposals. However there will not be time next week for a debate on this matter.

Mr. John Peyton: on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Loose allegations about "deceitful twisters"


come as a matter of routine from the Opposition. Do you consider that this is a point for you, Mr. Speaker, or is it simply that Opposition Members never stop looking in the mirror?

Mr. Speaker: I was not quite sure of the remark. However, all hon. Members know that it is out of order to reflect on any Member's sense of honour in this House. We function on the basis that we are all honourable or right honourable Members. If we fail to observe parliamentary standards, we do not deserve to be in this place.

Mr. John Silkin: May I return to next week's business? As many hon. Members will want to make constituency points in the debate on civil disorder next Thursday, and because of the importance of the debate, will the Leader of the House consider extending it for an extra hour?

Mr. Pym: I am prepared to consider that, through the usual channels.

Mr. James Johnson: Does not the Leader of the House, who is a thoughtful man at all times, think that for once he is underestimating the feelings of the nation about the findings of the Brandt commission? Is he aware that not only political parties but schools, churches and chapels are discussing the matter? Will he think again and try to find some time for a debate?

Mr. Pym: No. I do not think that I have misjudged the interest in the subject and the British people's attitude towards it. It is a matter of time. We have had some debates on the report already, and the question is whether there will be another opportunity before we rise. I have the matter very much in mind. If there is time and if we can arrange a debate, we shall do so, but I cannot promise it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have asked him in the past about the way in which Scottish Office Ministers treat Members of Parliament? May I ask him for a guarantee that he will speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland and impress on him the need to put down the orders relating to the proposed closure of Callendar Park college in my constituency, so that the matter can be debated before the house rises, and so that the Secretary of State will not adopt the practice that he has adopted in the past of taking such action when the House is in recess?

Mr. Pym: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I shall, of course, convey those remarks to him.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Even the right hon. Gentleman must be vaguely aware of the mounting disapproval of the Government's intentions of cutting the BBC's external services and of terminating its transcription service which has been a valuable vehicle for disseminating British culture throughout the world for many years. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his position and give the House a chance to change the Government's mind on this ludicrous decision?

Mr. Pym: On the merits, the capital cost involved in the two years 1983–85 is about £13 million. The Government are prepared to consider making available sums of that kind, provided that some economies are made

by the BBC. That is a reasonable position. On the question of making time available for a debate, I have nothing to add to what I told the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will not the Leader of the House at least add that no irrevocable decisions will be taken on the BBC's external services before the House has had an opportunity to discuss the matter, which concerns us all?
Secondly, regarding the effect of the Vale of Belvoir decision in Leicestershire, will the right hon. Gentleman draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, before he makes his statement, the fact that in once-prosperous Leicestershire there are now about 34 per cent. unemployed in one area, 2,000 school leavers chasing 70 jobs and a vast mumber of coal miners on the verge of being made unemployed? Is he not aware that the Belvoir coalfield could do a great deal to safeguard employment in, and the state of, the entire county of Leicestershire?

Mr. Pym: The future of the Vale of Belvoir is obviously an extremely important and difficult matter. A major inquiry has been held. It is a big decision. The coal has been there since the beginning of time and the question now is whether we should dig it out. It is right, and surely the House will think it right, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should take his time and consider with the utmost care all the issues surrounding the decision that faces him.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order in these circumstances for a Minister to make his decision before he comes to the House? Surely it is in accordance with the rules of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is up to the Minister.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Given that the Home Secretary has today announced a record number of people in prison and that a year ago—before we even reached the present level—the prison and borstal governors warned that the prison system was in a state of collapse, will the Leader of the House now give an assurance that we shall have an opportunity to debate the crisis in the prison system, or at least have a major statement, before the recess?

Mr. Pym: Not next week, Sir. There may be an occasion later in the autumn, but not in the immediate future. In answer to the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I think that I am right in saying that, under the Act, Parliament places upon the Secretary of State for the Environment the responsibility for taking a decision.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that when we have a major debate, as we had on defence this week and as we shall have on civil disorder next Thursday, there is a case, and it is common practice, for having an extra hour and a half at the end of the debate, so that we finish at 11.30 rather than at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Pym: On appropriate occasions, when agreed within the House through the usual channels, that is something that I am prepared to arrange.

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I should like to say that I am


conscious that it is about the sixth time that he has been called last. I trespass on his good nature because he is Welsh.

Mr. Evans: I am glad that you noticed it, Mr. Speaker.
When considering the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a major debate on Brandt before the recess, will the Leader of the House also consider asking the Lord Privy Seal to make a statement to the House about the Government's intentions regarding the Brandt report before the debate and before the three major party conferences?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the statement that was made yesterday by the Minister for Consumer Affairs about the disposal of the gas showrooms? Will he make an early statement on whether we are to have legislation on that?

Mr. Pym: On that point, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I do not think that there will be a statement before the debate, and I am not even able to give an undertaking that there will be such a debate. However, if there is an opportunity before we rise, so be it. I think that I have made that clear to the House.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you care to have a transfusion in Edinburgh so that you might the more frequently regard me?

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I thought that I had to look to Ireland.

"The Observer" Newspaper

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, I will make a statement.
On 29 June I informed the House that I had accepted the view of seven out of eight members of the group of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and had decided that I should consent to the proposed transfer of The Observer to George Outram and Company Limited, subject to conditions to safeguard editorial independence against a potential conflict of interest because of the extensive interests of Lonhro, Outram's parent company. However, I felt it right to defer reaching a final decision on the conditions to be attached until interested parties had had an opportunity to read the report and make representations. I have now concluded my consultations and have today issued my consent to the transfer, a copy of which I have laid before the House. The formal conditions that I have attached are based on those attached to the transfer of The Times and The Sunday Times to News International Limited.
The general effect of these conditions is that the articles of association of Observer Limited will contain provisions securing the position of the editor in relation to the determination of the content of the newspaper. They will further provide that he should not be subject to restraint in expressing opinion or reporting news that might conflict with the opinion or interests of the proprietors. His control over the journalist staff of the newspaper would be set out. The articles would in addition provide for five independent directors, who would have the special responsibility for resolving any disputes on matters of editorial independence between the editor and the directors of Observer Limited or its parent companies, including Lonrho. The consent of a majority of these directors would also be required for the appointment or dismissal of the editor and of the independent directors themselves.
Other conditions will secure that these arrangements continue if The Observer were to be transferred within the Lonhro group as a result of a company reorganisation, and provide for consultation with the board of Observer Limited, if Lonhro proposed to dispose of The Observer outside the group at a future date.
As I have said, there will be five independent directors. It was represented to me by several parties that the number of appointments recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—eight or nine—was excessive and would result in an unwieldy board structure for The Observer. I agreed. I am pleased to tell the House that the new owners, the management and the editorial staff have all agreed on four initial independent directors, and that those four shall select a fifth. My consent gives effect to this. The names are Mr. William Donaldson Clark, Sir Geoffrey Cox, Dame Rosemary Murray and Lord Windlesham. These conditions of my consent will help to provide safeguards for the editorial independence of The Observer, while involving the Government in the minimum intervention in the newspaper's day-to-day affairs.
I understand that the new owners, the management and the journalist staff have agreed on a number of other matters to which they attached importance, including, in particular, arrangements for consultation with the journalist staff on the appointment of independent directors and future editors.
I wish The Observer well under its new ownership and hope that whatever uncertainties may have beset it in the past few months will now be dispelled.

Mr. John Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread and deep-seated concern about the way in which our great newspapers are passing into the hands of rich men who control powerful economic interests and who are not noted for self-effacing political restraint? Is he also aware that it is of the utmost importance that the independence and integrity of The Observer, one of our great newspapers, is maintained?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the stand taken by Mr. Donald Trelford, the present editor, in fighting for the independence of his newspaper is worthy of great praise?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he agreed to the transfer before the safeguards had been worked out? Might he not have secured a more powerful negotiating position if he had made up his mind on the whole question after the safeguards had been worked out rather than giving consent first and leaving the safeguards to be worked out after Lonrho had secured what it basically wanted?
Will the Secretary of State give the House a little more detail about how the position of the editor is to be secured in the articles of association? In his statement the right hon. Gentleman merely asserted that purpose and did not explain how it could be achieved.
In particular, what is to be done if the conditions are breached in any way? What sanctions can be brought to bear on the newspaper's proprietor? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might have been helpful if one or two journalists on the staff, selected by the staff themselves, could have been appointed to the board?
Does not the Secretary of State agree that the final test in the whole matter will be whether The Observer can maintain its great tradition of reporting the affairs of the African continent, bearing in mind the person who now owns it? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that if the safeguards are breached in any way he will consider taking further action?

Mr. Biffen: Of course, we all wish The Observer well. The greatest safeguard that can be conferred on it is that it can be a profitable newspaper, not constantly having to seek outside financial assistance.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter of great import whenever there were newspaper transfers. That is undoubtedly true. I believe that the present arrangements under the fair trading legislation and the potential references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission provide a degree of reflective judgment that is serving us well and might be the envy of other countries that will also face the difficulties of newspaper economics.
I gladly pay tribute to the skills of Mr. Trelford, who is one of many who have seen me over the past few weeks.

Mr. John Smith: And to Mr. Trelford's courage.

Mr. Biffen: Certainly. I shall not disparage the role of any of those who have been working to try to secure the future of the newspaper.
I acted quickly on receipt of the commission's report because I believed it to be important to remove uncertainty about the newspaper's future. As long as the report was up for general debate and scrabble and scratch, we should have been no further forward. I was determined that there

should be a chance for further judgment on what were the most appropriate conditions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that what I have announced today will demonstrate that that judgment was reasonably well founded.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend speculate about the reasons why anyone should wish to buy a newspaper that has lost £8 million over the past five years if that person genuinely believes that he is to have no control over, or influence on, its future editorial policy?

Mr. Biffen: One may think that there are many factors in newspaper economics, apart from mere editorial quality, which addressed themselves to a turn-round.

Mr. J. Grimond: Is it not apparent that the whole procedure is now a farce? If the Minister had any reliance on a new directorate, he would not insist on the appointment of five independent directors. Is he aware that those five will be totally ineffective? The appointment of the great and the good to that sort of job is totally ineffective at any moment of crisis.
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by
the minimum intervention in the newspaper's day-to-day affairs
by the Government? Will he tell the five independent directors what they should do at particular times? Why on earth should not owners of newspapers take some responsibility for what appears in those newspapers? They hope to make a profit out of them or obtain some prestige from them. Why should they be insulated from any criticism of what the newspapers do? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to abandon the whole procedure?

Mr. Biffen: I acted in the way that I did in response to recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The right hon. Gentleman may have a heroic view of what one does about reports by the commission. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures on the independent directors. Perhaps a lifetime of Liberalism, close to the good and the great, makes him a good judge of what is ineffective. What he said was a most discourteous instant judgment on the arrangement that had been suggested.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If they are succinct, I hope to call all those hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I welcome the agreement reached between the owners and the journalists on The Observer, but is my right hon. Friend aware that in all parts of the House there is some anxiety about the apparently deepening confusion over the exercise of a Minister's powers in the whole matter of newspaper takeovers and mergers?
In particular, will my right hon. Friend clarify, first, what was the basis for deciding to refer The Observer to the commission after he had decided not to refer The Times? That is the starting point of this whole matter.
Secondly, might my right hon. Friend, as a Minister who is by temperament a non-interventionist, be a little anxious that if any of the safeguards should be in any way disregarded he will find himself in the most invidious position of being the first Minister to have to intervene directly in matters affecting the freedom of the press?

Mr. Biffen: No Secretary of State for Trade has ever had the slightest wish to edge in that direction. The answer to my hon. Friend's anxiety, which in a sense also answers a point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), is that the conditions have been drawn in such a way as to make them essentially self-enforcing through the articles of association which govern the company. We are keeping away from departmental supervision and sanctions. It is clearly understood that at the time of the dispute at The Times it was deemed that there was a sense of urgency and that The Times was likely to close. Those factors were decisive in guiding me. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) may laugh dismissively. However, I ask him to accept that that judgment was made in good faith, albeit mistakenly. It could not be argued that The Observer was in imminent danger of closure.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: Given the Secretary of State's rather muted tribute to Mr. Donald Trelford, should it not be put on record that Mr. Trelford has behaved with great courage throughout and has shown considerably more spirit than was shown on The Times and on The Sunday Times in similar circumstances?
I understand that four independent directors have been chosen and that they will choose the fifth. Who nominated the five directors? Which of them are staff representatives? How were the staff directors chosen? Will we receive a guarantee that the majority of independent directors, particularly those with close links with the staff, will be chosen independently and not by the Lonrho interest?

Mr. Biffen: No remarks of mine could bear the interpretation that I was in any sense grudging about Mr. Trelford's role in this affair. I am happy to have the chance to place that on record, because I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to make an unfair accusation. I have announced the names of four independent directors. Two of those names were suggested by The Observer and two were suggested by Lonrho.

Sir Bernard Braine: Although my right hon. Friend's reference to editorial freedom is encouraging—it was only what hon. Members would expect from him—may I ask him to tell us more about the independent directors? I do not wish to be critical, but, as the new owners have extensive commercial interests in many overseas countries, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the fifth director should be a person of the highest international eminence, particularly in relation to the media and international relations, and should be known and respected internationally?

Mr. Biffen: I certainly agree. I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to take account of the fact that chapter 7 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report gave detailed consideration to the record of Lonrho's newspaper activities in Africa. I agree with my hon. Friend that, given that the four independent directors will choose a fifth, I hope—I do not wish to appear arrogant—that the fifth director will match the existing four in their experience overseas and in the media.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: As the arrangements for securing editorial independence rest heavily on the appointment of the independent directors, what locus standi does the right hon. Gentleman

have in the event of any disagreement following the retirement, or otherwise, of those independent directors? In what sense will the directors be independent?

Mr. Biffen: The independent directors will choose their successors.

Mr. David Winnick: Although there has been some improvement as a result of the negotiations, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable concern about the fact that a company such as Lonrho has taken over The Observer? Is not Lonrho the unacceptable face of British press ownership?

Mr. Biffen: I have no reason to suppose that. After all, Lonrho has owned newspapers in Scotland. There is no evidence of the practices that are constantly being alleged in a generalised way. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless have read chapter 7 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Lonrho's newspaper record in Africa.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome his statement, because, as he has said, the most important factor in a newspaper's survival is that it should become profitable as soon as possible? Therefore, a speedy decision was necessary.

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

Mr. Christopher Price: Journalists on The Observer made a reasonable demand that one or two of the independent directors should be chosen from working journalists on the newspaper. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman feel that that was a proper condition to write into the agreement? What will happen if all the independent directors resign in disgust and decide that their role is useless? Does the right hon. Gentleman have the statutory power to walk in and put five more directors in their place?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has asked a good question, but I do not live my life trying to deal with the most hypothetical and fearsome dangers when I have more tangible ones nearer home. As regards the selection of the initial five directors, I felt it important that the Department should have as passive a role as possible as there is no proper function for politicians in this. That is why I did not seek to make the specifications that the hon. Gentleman referred to.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend say who had the effective veto over the appointment of Mr. Hugh Stephenson as one of the outside independent directors?

Mr. Biffen: No. I do not know.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: In the remarkably short period in which the right hon. Gentleman has held office, he has seen The Times and The Sunday Times effectively pass to the control of Mr. Rupert Murdoch. The Observer is now going to Mr. Tiny Rowlands. How does the right hon. Gentleman feel about this whole business and its outcome? How does he feel about the seclusion of his distinguished moral and cultural conscience?

Mr. Biffen: My conscience can safely be put to one side as the biggest irrelevance of all this afternoon. It has been brought home to me that a significant area of Fleet Street is decidedly unprofitable and has some difficulty in


finding the rescue engine of its choice. It is clear that in today's world many of those who wish to be newspaper owners have other interests. In the procedure of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, we have a handy device to deal with that difficult situation.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[27TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day — The Army

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The defence review and the White Paper entitled "The Way Forward" provide a natural background for the debate. The Army has suffered relatively few immediate casualties compared with the massacre of the Navy and the savaging of the dockyards.
I pay tribute to our troops, and particularly to those in Northern Ireland. I do so not because it is customary to pay tribute in such debates, and not as a mere matter of ritual, but because the House and the country owe them a genuine debt of gratitude, particularly in such difficult times. All hon. Members will acknowledge that no troops in the world that have endured the difficulties that our troops have had to undergo in recent months could have carried out the responsibilities placed on them with such style, discipline and restraint.
When I visited Northern Ireland, serving soldiers gave me a reason for their consistently high morale. They said that they had a sure knowledge that that their equipment, weaponry and supplies were of the highest standard and would be maintained at that level. That is a practical illustration of the need to ensure that our Service men are not put in the morale-sapping position of being under-trained through the cancellation of exercises—to which the Minister referred when he wound up the debate on Tuesday—and through being under-equipped through lack of ammunition.
That can be caused through the strain of the ever-increasing cost of equipment—I appreciate that that was one of the justifications for the review—for which, in the words of the Financial Times, we are
spending more and more to get less and less".
That means that we must have a guaranteed source of production capability for equipment, ammunition and stores. We must have the necessary back-up services to meet the needs of our forces. Those requirements should be given priority over the more tempting and commercially acceptable and profitable contracts overseas.
Over the years the Royal ordnance factories have maintained that capability. They provide about one-sixth of the Army's equipment and, in some cases, are the only United Kingdom source of supply. It is shameful and an affront to the loyal, dedicated, hard-working and highly skilled work force in the Royal ordnance factories that the Government should have created a cloud of uncertainty over their future by initiating the study into the ROFs.

Mr. Ted Graham: I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the headline on the front page of my local newspaper, the Enfield Gazette:
Small Arms Factory to be Sold.
Is it not a scandal and a disgrace that, because of the Government's intention to privatise the Royal ordnance


factories, and because of the uncertainty caused by the Government's plans, the employees of the Royal small arms factory are living under a cloud and fear for their future? Does my hon. and learned Friend intend to give any hope and solace to my constituents about what a future Labour Government might do?

Mr. Davidson: Not only do I want to give hope and solace to my hon. Friend's constituents; I want to give hope and solace to my constituents who work in the Royal ordnance factory in Blackburn. I shall have further words to say on that.
The study's terms of reference were clearly biased in favour of the Government's dogmatic obsession with privatisation and with selling off anything profitable in public hands that they could lay their hands on. It was a useful study of the advantages of the close link between Royal ordnance factories and the rest of the Ministry of Defence. It produced three options, one being to improve on the restraints and limitations of the trading fund organisation, but the Government seem set on the course of privatisation.
The Secretary of State's reply on 25 July to the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck)—whom I know very well—has added to the uncertainty, especially his statement that one or more of the ordnance factories may be sold to private industry.
That is the fear to which my hon. Friend draws attention. I do not know whether one of the factories to which the Minister alluded is the one at Enfield, the one in which some of my constituents work in Blackburn or the one at Leeds, which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean).
The Minister has added to that uncertainty and caused depression and resentment among the loyal work force. There is no reason to sell such a profitable organisation to private enterprise other than dogma—an example of the same extreme political philosophy as has prompted the selling off of the gas appliance outlets.

Mr. Antony Buck: There is a doctrinal difference between the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that what is likely to happen if some of the Royal ordnance factories are sold is that his constituents will, perhaps, be able to earn more, gain a better standard of living and have a better future.

Mr. Davidson: That is not what my constituents who work in the Royal ordnance factory at Blackburn tell me. They want to remain as a trading fund, though they acknowledge that there are deficiencies in remaining as a trading fund, especially in the research and development arrangements. At Blackburn we have an efficient research and development section, but there is no reason for provision not to be made for research and development facilities within the Royal ordnance factory trading fund.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the logic of the Government's position is that they should consider selling off the Army to Securicor? If privatisation is so effective, there is no reason to stop at the ordnance factories. The Navy could be taken over by Townsend Thoresen Car Ferries Ltd. on exactly the same principle. Is it not true that the

Government do not do that because they recognise that the Armed Forces need to be under Government control and accountability? That is making the best and most efficient use of our resources. What is true of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force is true of the ordnance factories.

Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend may not be surprised to hear that I agree with everything that he has said. I do not agree with selling off the Army or the Navy, and I do not agree with selling the Royal ordnance factories either.
The unions and the work force at the Royal ordnance factories are strongly opposed to anything in the nature of privatisation. The Opposition will fight privatisation by all the means in their power. I give the commitment that we will take back any factories that are sold, on terms that will guarantee that the purchasers derive no financial benefit therefrom.
One or two matters arise from the defence review. First, the tank has rightly been called the virility symbol of the British Army. For years we have relied on the Chieftain. It is a fine tank and has given excellent service, but it is getting old in the tooth and was to be replaced by the MBT80. That was the tank that the experts wanted and which was due to replace the Chieftain in the late 1980s. With the cancellation of the Shir 2 for the Shah of Iran, we can now acquire the Challenger. The Minister has said that he has plans for the Challenger to be produced in sufficient numbers to equip four regiments. When is the first Challenger expected to be in the field? How many Challengers does the Minister expect will come into service over the next few years—if that is not too ambiguous a question?
The Minister has spoken of modernising the Chieftain. How many of those tanks will be kept in service, and how will they be uprated? Will there be a problem with commonality of spares and different types of equipment with two types of tank in service? When will Challenger replace Chieftain entirely?
The Minister has also mentioned improvements to Challenger. What are they, and how does Challenger compare with the MBT80? Is the latter a major advance on Challenger, and are there plans eventually to replace Challenger with the MBT80?

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the tank has been called the virility symbol of the Army. Does he mean that the Army should not have tanks, or is his interest more real and down-to-earth than his terminology suggests? Does he believe that the Army can exist without tanks, or does he agree that the phase "virility symbol" is stupid and inappropriate?

Mr. Davidson: Nothing that I said should lead the hon. Gentleman to suppose that. The phrase appeared in a learned article in The Economist, and I have to get my information from such sources.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: To take up the point made so light-heartedly by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), may I ask whether my hon. and learned Friend agrees that the essence of the strength of the British Army of the Rhine is its armour, which is all the more reason not to dissipate millions of pounds on a useless missile system? We could use the money to put new tanks in the field in the BAOR more quickly.

Mr. Davidson: I was coming to that. The only justification that I can think of for Trident is that it could be unleashed on someone as boorish as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
I deal next with the number of Service men. The Army is to lose a divisional headquarters staff and 7,000 men. The loss of the divisional headquarters does not appear to be of great strategic significance and merely takes us back to the 1974 review. However, what will the redundancy pattern be for the 7,000 members of the Regular Army? The Minister mentioned a reduction to 135,000 trained men in five years. What ranks and grades will be involved, and will the top brass be included? Will the main burden fall on the other ranks? Can the reduction be achieved without involuntary redundancy? If not, what hope can the Minister give to soldiers who were recruited to aid the country and who will be thrown out at a time when Government policies have created unprecedently high unemployment, particularly in traditional areas of recruitment? Spread over five years 7,000 jobs may not be an enormous amount, but what effect will it have on the morale of the Armed Forces?
As we are dealing with the subject, what is the present position on recruitment? There has been little difficulty in attracting people into the Army, as there have been willing recruits from areas of high unemployment. I accept that the pay increases introduced by the Government have made the Services a more attractive career. Newspaper reports say that recruitment has virtually been stopped by the Ministry of Defence. Is that true?
There have been ambiguous statements about continued re-equipment of the BAOR. What new projects and orders are planned, and what orders has the Minister placed that were not started by the previous Government?
I welcome the purchase of the Milan anti-tank missile, but can the Minister explain the ambiguous and vague statement about the scale or timing of new projects that need to be modified? A little more detail on the scale and timing would overcome uncertainty about the BAOR' s re-equipment requirements and ensure that they are maintained at the highest level.
I was concerned to read the announcement by the Ministry of Defence about the reduction in the purchase of Land Rovers from 3,000 to 300 in 1981–82. Why is that necessary, and what effect will it have on employment prospects at British Leyland in Solihull?
Although it may be merely a rumour, it is suggested that there may be a £1 million cut in the Armed Forces network as part of the cut in the BBC's overseas service. The network has boosted the morale of our troops for many years. Are the rumours true? Is there to be a cutback, and, if so, what effect does the Minister believe that it will have on morale?
I come to a matter that has reflected little credit on the Ministry's wholly owned arms sales subsidiary, International Military Services Ltd. I am referring to the payment of nearly £500,000 into a Swiss bank account for what was delightfully and blandly described as "consultancy services". The Public Accounts Committee drew attention to the unsavoury incident. I accept as the PAC did, that no bribes were paid.
The sale of arms is not a glamorous business, although one cannot argue against it if one wants ROFs, which depend on overseas sales, to continue. Nevertheless, particularly if it is done in the name of the British Government, arms sales should be carried out honestly and

without the suspicion of palm-greasing. What has the Minister done to ensure that, if intermediaries are used, they are supervised as closely as possible to make sure that bribes are not paid? The Ministry of Defence, and therefore the Government, are too close to such sales to allow any suspicion to fall upon them.

Mr. Keith Best: What is the Opposition's view? Many other Western nations offer what we might describe as bribes, although they might use a more euphemistic phrase. What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the activities of other countries? How would he seek to prevent such activities?

Mr. Davidson: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not my job to interfere in other countries or to make suggestions to them. That is a job for NATO.
The review has been described by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by the press, as a stop-gap, interim measure. At the most, it provides a breathing space for the Secretary of State before he comes back to the House to announce further cuts. That must happen. With the cost of Trident, whether it is £5 million, £5 billion or even £7 billion, reaching its peak in the mid to late 1980s, the Secretary of State will have to find some other project to accommodate it. It is an unjustifiable extravagance and an over-expensive piece of overkill.
With the cost of advanced equipment rising well above the inflation rate, plus 3 per cent., the Secretary of State must cut out some project. If that must happen, it should not be at the expense of conventional weapons or front-line troops. In any war scenario, however horrific, the BAOR will provide the front-line troops.
There is a danger, which was referred to in the debate on Tuesday. I shall not labour the point. Because of the Secretary of State's persistence in persevering with Trident, and because of the necessity to economise elsewhere, he will further lower the nuclear threshold. That will result in an earlier resort to nuclear weapons.
I have never doubted that the last thing that the Secretary of State wishes to do is to come to the House and announce further cuts. His patriotism and dedication to the troops are not in doubt. However, I fear that he will have to do that. I fear that before long he will be announcing serious and savage cuts, not for the Navy but for the Army.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): I agree immediately with the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) in his praise for our forces in Northern Ireland. It is eight years since I was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. In those days the Army's task was even more difficult than it is today. Northern Ireland, although still difficult, is less bloody than it was then. That must be due, to a large extent, to the patience, dedication, discipline and self-restraint shown by the Army in the intervening years.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred initially to what he described as the "massacre" of the Navy and reductions in the dockyards. It is too much to expect that in the last two days the Opposition would have formed any ideas about what they would make their defence policy. If the hon. and learned Gentleman describes our actions, which involve a 3 per cent. increase in real spending over four years, as a massacre, what on earth does he think


would be the consequence of such policies as we have heard of from the Opposition? A reduction of £3,500 million per year is in their programme.

Mr. Brynmor John: I have no doubt that the Minister has used his two days wisely, certainly more wisely than to rehash the speech that he made on Tuesday. Can he give a figure for the implications of the defence White Paper or has the Ministry of Defence only rehashed yet again the implications of our proposals? Is that the only arithmetic that the Ministry of Defence and its expensively paid officials are capable of?

Mr. Blaker: We have stated our plans for a 3 per cent real increase over the next four years.
The House will be aware from the White Paper and from the answer given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) on 25 June that the Government favour early changes in the Royal ordnance factories' constitution to overcome the difficulties identified by the study group. The report of that group is in the Library.
As my right hon. Friend made clear, there are a number of possible ways in which private industry might, with advantage, play a greater part. However, a number of factors have still to be explored and no final decisions have yet been taken. In reaching final decisions the Government will seek to provide greater sales and job opportunities for the Royal ordnance factories to the benefit of defence and, I believe, of people who work in the factories.
One of the factors in the Government's mind is that the organisation does not in general have its own design and development capability. It would be beneficial if it did. There will be further consultations on the broad proposals.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister saying that he can contemplate the possibility that there will be more employees in the Royal ordnance factories than there are at present? Can the employees at the factory in Enfield, for example, really believe that when the reorganisation settles down there will be more jobs there?

Mr. Blaker: The obvious answer is "Yes". That is part of the object of the exercise. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on that.
The hon. and learned Member for Accrington mentioned the Services' radio corporation. One achievement in my time in the Ministry of Defence in 1972–73 was the decision that we would provide television for our forces in Germany. We said that that decision was irrevocable. We said that, come what may, that would happen. Today the programme is 90 per cent. complete. That is a big achievement.
I intend to review the Army's activities, achievements and improvements over the past year and to look ahead to the future in the light of the programme changes announced as a result of our review.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The Minister has not dealt with the Armed Forces radio network. Is it to be cut or not?

Mr. Blaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is relaying speculation again. I do not wish to continue with answers to all the points that he has made. I shall ask my hon. Friend to deal with them later.
I shall now review the Army's activities, achievements and improvements over the past year and look to the future in the light of the programme changes announced as a result of our review.
The keynote of the White Paper "The Way Forward" is balance—balance between resources and commitments, between men and equipment and between short and long-term improvements. For the Army, striking the right balance will mean increased expenditure on equipment. We must ensure that the Army has the right equipment and enough of it. We must expect that a key element in any Warsaw Pact offensive would be the strength of its armoured units. Warsaw Pact tanks, artillery and air defences have all benefited from the massive Soviet research and development programme.
Planning for the future is no easy task. The length of time required to develop new ranges of equipment and to bring them into service contrasts with the fact that—in a defensive alliance—our requirements are ultimately dictated by the threat we face and cannot, therefore, be predicted with absolute certainty. We must construct a programme that maintains the capability of our forces in the short term and allows for expected developments in the longer term. We must combine gradual improvements to some weapons systems with replacements of others and phase programmes to achieve a smooth pattern of expenditure.
I propose, in talking about equipment, to adopt a radical new approach, largely for the benefit of the hon. and learned Member for Accrington. It was clear in our debate on Tuesday that the hon. and learned Gentleman had some difficulty with the names of equipment and the acronyms that we come across in the Ministry of Defence. I propose, therefore, to spell out a bit the purpose and the nature of the equipment to which I shall refer and not simply refer to it by its name.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he was not being sarcastic. I have some difficulty. So do some people who read Hansard. It is important that the public should understand the nature of the weaponry to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is all very well to talk in initials, but these do not mean anything to the average person.

Mr. Blaker: I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not say that I was adopting this approach exclusively for the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is time that we spelt out these things in a way that is more intelligible to the public.
It is in the context of a wide range of time scales and capabilities that the improvements referred to in the defence White Paper and the review White Paper should be seen. The decision to purchase the Challenger tank and to discontinue the MBT80 programme, for example, illustrates the point that achieving an early in-service date can be more important than delaying to buy a more advanced tank later on. There will also be a programme of qualitative improvements both to the existing Chieftain fleet and in due course to Challenger. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the improvements. They will affect the gun, the weapons control system and the engine.
I would like here to go into a little more detail about one other improvement which was announced in the White paper. That is a new night sight for tanks. At the moment, our Chieftain tanks are equipped only with a searchlight


for night vision, and we have therefore decided to place a contract for full development of a thermal imaging surveillance and gun sighting system. I do not know what will be its eventual name, but I hope that it will not be called by its initials. We are placing the contract with Barr and Stroud of Glasgow. The system will be fitted both to the current Chieftain fleet and to the Challenger tanks now being built. The sight enables one, in effect, to see—

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is this replacement night sight a British commodity, or will it have to be purchased from a foreign supplier?

Mr. Blaker: I have said that the contract will be placed with Barr and Stroud of Glasgow. The sight enables one, in effect, to see in the dark by producing images based on the differences in heat between objects and their surroundings. It will provide a new capability to engage an enemy at night and in other conditions of poor visibility. The equipment will enter service in the mid-1980s and will be a major enhancement of the capability of our armoured forces.
The White Papers also list many other enhancements. One of our primary roles, our ability to defeat enemy armour, rests on the possession of a wide variety of systems, each of which presents a potential aggressor with different problems which he must take into account in his plans. In the current year, one aspect in particular will be much improved as we begin the deployment of Tow long-range anti-tank guided missiles mounted on Lynx helicopters.
The relevance of this arrangement is that the helicopter is very manoeuvrable and can take cover behind buildings or woods, emerging briefly to fire its missile and then returning to cover. Lynx will replace the Scout helicopters with the SS11 missiles and can really be seen as a threefold improvement. Not only is Tow a considerably more sophisticated weapon than the first-generation SS11, but each helicopter will carry more of them.
As the Lynx fleet is built up, the number of aircraft dedicated to this role will double. By the middle of the decade, we expect our holdings of helicopter-borne anti-tank missiles to increase by a factor of six.
Looking ahead, our own tank fleet will be enlarged and upgraded in the ways I described a moment ago. Just as important as the tank itself is the ammunition which it fires. Modern Warsaw Pact tanks have considerably better armoured protection than their predecessors, and we must match this by research into materials which will provide more effective penetration. One such improved round will enter service in the near future.
Yet another new anti-tank weapon which will be distributed by the thousand down to section level in the British Army is totally different again. This is the man-portable weapon known as Law 80. Law will replace existing short-range rockets such as the Carl Gustav, and as development proceeds it is evident that we have here an extremely potent weapon, capable of defeating the best-protected tanks. We shall also increase our capability with medium range anti-tank weapons by buying extra firing posts and missiles of Milan to increase our stocks, again by the middle of the decade, by 28 per cent.
I should like to touch on a few other aspects of our capability before I leave the subject of equipment. The first is artillery. This year, 69 additional M109 guns will be delivered. These are 155 mm self-propelled guns, and

this will allow us to reorganise the artillery in First British Corps—increasing the number of guns in a battery from six to eight. Further ahead, the multiple launch rocket system, entering service in the mid-1980s, and the self-propelled 155 mm howitzer-SP 70, following in the later part of the decade, are both collaborative projects, involving between them the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States, France and Italy as well as ourselves. Together, they will make a major contribution to the conduct of any battle on the central front, with their greatly enhanced mobility, accuracy, range and rate of fire.
Second, we shall be improving our low level air defence capability. The anti-aircraft Rapier missile with the Blindfire radar and the man-portable, shoulder-fired Blowpipe missile are, we judge, the most effective way of meeting our requirements in this field throughout the 1980s. Our decision to purchase three batteries of the self-propelled tracked version of Rapier will greatly strengthen our front-line defences because of its increased mobility. The tracked version, as the House will readily realise, does not need to be set up in each new location and, therefore, its reaction time will be very much improved.
The third aspect is command and control. In an age of such rapid technological change it is a brave man who will forecast which aspect of warfare is likely to change most during the 1980s, but the technology of the microchip seems set to revolutionise the way in which armies handle the information on which they depend to direct operations. The Britsh Army is well in the forefront of these developments. The Wavell system, developed by Plessey, will provide computer assistance in the processing of information about what is going on on the battlefield and enable it to be acted upon that much faster. We believe also that Wavell has great potential for export sales.
BATES, the battlefield artillery target engagement system, will ensure that our artillery resources are directed quickly and accurately against the highest priority targets, This again is a computerised method of providing information to those who need it. Communications are all-important. The modern and sophisticated Ptarmigan system will replace, from the mid-1980s onwards, the Bruin trunk communications system and provide a secure link for communicating between static and mobile headquarters for the transmission of information and messages.
I mentioned in the debate on Tuesday that we would be increasing our ammunition stock levels. Our plans should increase the combat endurance of First British Corps by 20 to 30 per cent. They cover a wide range of weapons, and I have already specifically mentioned Milan and helicopter-borne anti-tank missiles.
Taken together, I believe that we have a healthy and broad-based equipment programme—I have by no means mentioned it all today—which will enable the Army to fulfil its tasks through the 1980s. However, increased expenditure on equipment will have to be balanced by some manpower reductions.
The Regular Army's trained strength is planned to reduce by up to about 7,000 men to some 135,000 inert by 1986. We expect to achieve the bulk of the reduction by savings in the Army's infrastructure and support organisation, particularly its headquarters, training and general management structures. The reduction in numbers will be achieved as far as possible through natural wastage. I think that answers one of the questions put to me. The


reductions will cover all ranks. We hope to do them without redundancy as far as can be done but there will be no exemption in favour of the senior ranks.
The Territorial Army, the Gurkhas and the Ulster Defence Regiment provide fighting forces in addition to the 135,000. I should also pay tribute to the role that the Women's Royal Army Corps plays.
With regard to BAOR, we shall be maintaining an army of 55,000 on the Continent, in accordance with our commitment under the Brussels Treaty.

Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend say what are the commitments under the Brussels Treaty and any protocols that there may be? Is it to a minimum number of troops in BAOR or to a maximum number? Will he also inform me whether there is any specific commitment as to what the constituent element should be vis-a-vis Regular forces and Reserve forces?

Mr. Blaker: My recollection—it can be checked in the Library, and no doubt my hon. Friend will do that—is that we are committed to a minimum number of forces and to the maintenance of a tactical air force in the Federal Republic. No doubt my hon. Friend will be able to verify the exact wording.
Our decision to maintain 55,000 on the Continent recognises the vital importance of the United Kingdom's contribution both to NATO's operational plans for the defence of this crucial region and to its political cohesion. But, to hold the manpower in BAOR at this level, some savings will have to be made. They will come, in the main, from streamlining the command structure and cutting administrative staffs. For example, headquarters at BAOR will be cut by 20 per cent. One divisional headquarters out of the present four will be withdrawn to the United Kingdom and reformed to command a predominantly Territorial Army division dedicated to the reinforcement of First British Corps in an emergency. This reorganisation will not harm First British Corps' operational effectiveness; rather the reverse.
Combat strength will not fall below the present level, and the existing eight brigades in Germany will be grouped into three larger and more powerful divisions, each of three brigades instead of the present four divisions. We believe that this will improve the corps' ability to meet an attack with little warning. The ninth brigade will be the 7th Field Force based at Colchester.
We are, therefore, planning for a slightly smaller but better equipped and more effective Army. But this cannot be achieved without highly trained and professional officers and soldiers. We need to attract and to retain men and women of a high standard. This we are doing. Last year we drew attention to an improvement in the Army's level of manning. This improvement has continued throughout 1980 and 1981. Not only has recruiting remained exceptionally buoyant—last year was the best for 10 years and between April and December 1980 it was 11 per cent. higher than in the equivalent period in 1979—but the outflow of trained soldiers has also dropped dramatically.
The number of soldiers leaving the Army is now at the lowest rate since the Army became an all-volunteer force in 1962. In April to December 1980 there was a 14 per cent. reduction in those leaving the Army compared with the same period in 1979. The number of soldiers leaving early at their own request at the present time is down by 40 per cent. compared even with last year.
This means that the Army is looking for very high standards in those who apply to join. It means also that we shall be taking in fewer fresh recruits from now until the end of the year. However, there are still shortages in certain skills and trades, such as electronics warfare operators, equipment technicians in the Royal Signals, and in several trades in the Army medical and dental services. I am glad to say that officer manning has also much improved recently, although we shall still have shortages of captains and majors in several corps of the Army for some years to come.

Mr. John Browne: With regard to recruiting, can my hon. Friend assure the House that his right hon. Friend and he will take this opportunity to improve the standard, within the Armed Forces, and particularly within the Army, rather than by creaming off the less satisfactory people throughout the Armed Services, and rather than by stopping recruitment, which discriminate against youth employment and will create gaps in the Army in the future, when particular age groups pass on through the Armed Services? Cannot the opportunity be seized upon to improve standards?

Mr. Blaker: I have already said that we think that standards have improved. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his point about the continuation of recruitment. We have to continue recruiting. If we were to so stop recruiting, we would find ourselves in a few years' time with a gap in respect of a certain age group and a certain type of soldier. Therefore, we must continue recruiting, even though, for the reasons that I have mentioned, it has to be at a lower level for the time being.
Fundamental to the Government's future programme for the Army are the plans for the Territorial Army. In all operational planning, the Territorial Army is fully integrated with the Regulars and has a vital part to play in both of the Army's major roles—in defence of the United Kingdom base and of the central region. On mobilisation, the Territorial Army would complete the Army's order of battle by providing nearly 30 per cent. of our mobilised forces. Its units would perform vital roles in contributing to the reinforcement of BAOR and also make a major contribution to the forces that would remain to guarantee the security of the United Kingdom in war. The Territorial Army represents a particularly efficient way of using our manpower and financial resources, and we have decided, as we have announced, that the Territorial Army will be increased by some 16,000 men and women, raising its strength towards the end of the decade to 86,000. Recruiting trends since this Government took office have given us reasonable confidence that we can meet the new targets.

Mr. Best: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again, but would he be a little more specific about where the 16,000 Territorial soldiers are to be found from? Also, are they to be in substitution for some of the reduction of 7,000 in Regular troops as a result of the defence review?

Mr. Blaker: I cannot say at the moment exactly from where they will be produced, but we have taken the broad decisions and we now have to do a great deal of the working out of the detail. My hon. Friend referred to substitution. That is the wrong way of putting it. The reduction of 7,000 will occur largely in support and administration, and perhaps in some of the headquarters staff. Obviously, the Territorials will not necessarily fill similar roles to those. We have to look at the two things as two separate operations.
The strength of the Territorial Army has continued to rise month by month and it is now 69,700—10,000 more than it was in May 1979. This is 94 per cent. of the establishment and the highest manning level achieved since the major reorganisation of the Territorial Army in 1967. The attraction of the Territorial Army and its efficiency will be enhanced by the increase in the number of man training days announced by my right hon. Friend.
Exercise Crusader 80 proved that our plans to reinforce BAOR have been well prepared and do work. In all, it involved over 95,000 British Service men. Although the other Services played vital roles, the vast majority of United Kingdom forces involved were from the Army. It consisted of a home defence exercise, a reinforcement exercise, and a field training exercise in Germany. The final lessons of this very complex exercise are still being analysed, but in general it went very well.
From the national point of view, the most important aspect of the exercise was the reinforcement phase. Thirty thousand soldiers, including 20,000 in the Territorial Army, were moved to Europe and deployed in their exercise positions within the planned time scales. This has given a feeling of confidence, not only in the Army itself, but equally among our NATO Allies, that the basing of our reinforcements in the United Kingdom contributes to a credible deterrent.
The exercise was notable for the very encouraging performance of the TA. Its turnout was very high, and there is no doubt that it showed up well, both during reinforcement and in the field training exercise. During the exercise, the Army maintained the very good public relations with the local population which are so important, and which contributed enormously to the success of the exercise.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I and a number of Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament went on Operation Crusader last year. Why is it that nine months have passed before the Ministry of Defence is in a position to estimate the so-called lesson of that exercise, and when will it be made public? Is it not true that soldiers often arrived at the wrong place, fatigued to the point of exhaustion, and that the whole scenario was bogus in that, because of the imminence of the German elections, there was no suggestion of nuclear weapons being introduced into the battlefield?

Mr. Blaker: As I have been at the Ministry for only a month, perhaps I should not go into the matter. No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will have an opportunity, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with the matter better than I can. In the meantime, I shall move on to the important question of civilian staff.
The House will of course be well aware of the pay dispute which since March has had its effects on defence, as on other parts of government.
I am glad to say, however, that its effects on the Army have been minimal. Staff on strike at the mapping and charting establishment at Feltham have been holding up map production for the Services but, to put this in perspective, these 40 to 50 on strike should be seen against the 28,000 Army Department non-industrial civilians who are working normally—and, of course, the 25,000 industrial staff working for the Army are not involved in the dispute at all.
I would like to pay a tribute to the civilians who do such valuable work in support of the Army. Some people seem to assume that all the Ministry's civilians are chairbound. The great majority of Army Department civil servants are people such as fitters in REME workshops, range wardens and storemen in ordnance depots.
I turn now from planning and exercises concerned with a major conflict to the operations and tasks in which the


Army has been involved during the year. I have already mentioned Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, with his knowledge of Northern Ireland, will describe in greater detail what the Army is doing there.
In other parts of the world, the Army was involved in operations over a very wide area. Elements of the Spearhead battalion deployed to Vanuatu in June in order to help ensure the orderly transition to independence for the Anglo-French condominium. In the jungles of Belize, border patrols continue to play a major part in maintaining stability, and we have continued to make large contributions to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus and to provide logistic support for the Lebanon.
In Hong Kong, temporary reinforcements have been provided during the past year to help check the flow of illegal immigrants. In June 1979 when, at the request of the Governor we first reinforced the garrison, there were some 800 arrests per day. By April 1981, following also a change in legislation, the average daily arrest figure had dropped to well below 100. The new defence costs agreement came into effect in April, by which the Hong Kong Government now meet 75 per cent. of the actual costs of the garrison. The agreement also provides for the deployment of an additional infantry battalion in Hong Kong. This will ease the burden on the existing garrison which has been unable to train sufficiently for tasks other than border patrols.
Apart from these direct contributions, the Army also makes an indirect, but none the less important, contribution to the maintenance of British interests overseas. Over 400 Army personnel are currently in loan service posts abroad, providing a wide range of training and assistance to the benefit of some 20 countries. Additionally, about 1,500 students from about 75 countries attended Army courses in this country during 1980. Such military assistance and training promote our interests, in the widest sense, and at the same time strengthen regional security.
Perhaps the best example of this is currently provided by Zimbabwe. There, the Army provides the bulk of the 150-strong British military advisory and training team. At the request of the Zimbabwe Government, the team has been helping with the amalgamation of the armed forces in Zimbabwe, following independence. It has been training ZIPRA, ZANLA and ex-Rhodesian security force personnel of different ranks and specialisations as part of an amalgamation programme drawn up by the Zimbabwe joint high command to form new national armed forces for that country. In addition to the advisory and training team, military assistance offered to Zimbabwe has included courses, visits and attachments for Zimbabwean personnel in the United Kingdom and advisory visits by British service personnel to Zimbabwe.
Through these various forms of assistance, the Army in particular is making a vital contribution to the future of Zimbabwe. The success of the operation to date—24 integrated battalions created so far—is largely due to the skill, enthusiasm and dedication of the members of the British military team, which Mr. Mugabe has described as playing its role "magnificently".
I hope that I have demonstrated to the House, as has been clearly shown to me in the past few weeks, how wide-ranging and vital is the contribution of the Army to the

security and well-being of the nation and how important its role is worldwide. We can be justifiably proud of the men and women, both Regulars and reservists, who fulfil their tasks so professionally. I look forward to working with them all.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I heartily join the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), who spoke for the Opposition, and the Minister of State, in their generous, but not over-generous, tributes to the troops who are serving in Northern Ireland and to those who have served in the past and have sometimes given their lives in protecting and defending our part of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Accrington and the Minister of State will be aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have supported the Army in good times and bad. We have been careful to avoid condemning the Army on the rare occasions when a junior NCO has made a mistake. Those of us who have served in similar circumstances know how easily such mistakes can be made. The wonder is that errors have not been far more frequent. I am certain that we in our time made far more mistakes. The difference was that on those occasions we were not court-martialled on account of the accuracy of our marksmanship.
The Minister of State mentioned the Ulster Defence Regiment and the part that it has played and is playing in the defeat of terrorism from whatever quarter. Its local knowledge and experience is of immense value to its comrades in the Regular Army and in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I trust that that skill and success in intelligence-gathering will not be damaged in any way by an excess of zeal on the part of well-meaning senior officers who have ideas about centralising briefing, for example, at battalion rather than company level.
Like other parties in the House, we have supported the improvements in the pay of the Armed Forces. However, Ministers will be aware that certain anomalies have arisen from that increase for the Ulster Defence Regiment. In the Ulster Defence Regiment they have taken the form of curious differentials. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are studying the complications and the various factors involved. Perhaps we may be permitted to put our submissions to Ministers in the near future.
I shall deal briefly with two aspects of deployment. The first aspect concerns the intricate switching of overt to covert operational units and vice versa. At certain times it appears that there is a tendency to leak information which is just sufficient for political exploitation. I hope that the Minister is aware of examples of Army and Ulster Defence Regiment patrols being stood down to make it possible to commit undercover units to specific tasks. One hopes that these tasks include the elimination of terrorist units in given areas. Invariably the tactical decision is misinterpreted or perhaps deliberately misrepresented. When that happens the world at large, including terrorist gunmen, is informed. Attention is focussed on the particular locality and the planned operation has to be abandoned.
This is the old, old story of incurable gossips feeling compelled to divulge information even though they know that it will be used unscrupulously without thought of the consequences. One of these days the consequences will be


fatal for some, and unfortunately that "some" always includes the best. Perhaps Dieppe was the most serious war-time example.
Terrorists who are trained to interpret snippets of information that are leaked by unscrupulous politicians can read the signs, escape the net and live to kill on another day. I accept that the Minister of State is not responsible for more than a fraction of the wagging tongues. However, he may feel that it would be desirable to alert all concerned to the dangers of careless talk in the presence of politicians, a race that is inclined to go for headlines at the risk of sabotaging counter-insurgency operations of a covert nature. Perhaps we, the politicians can help by resolving that from this day forward we shall convey our views to the appropriate authorities instead of going public on current operational decisions. I trust that the Minister and his colleagues will be only too happy to consider the possibility of establishing a secure channel through which our fears and doubts may be transmitted in absolute confidence and at no risk to our security forces.
The second aspect of deployment that I wish to raise stems from the eruption of street violence in English cities. Like every other hon. Member, I wish that street violence would go away. However, in the light of experience in Northern Ireland I fear that what we have seen is something in the nature of a rehearsal. The next stage will be a determined attempt to stretch the police to breaking point by launching, in possibly six different centres in the same region, the same vicious attacks. One assumes that plans are being prepared to enable the Army to support the civil power in the event by means of what might be called a United Kingdom rapid deployment force. In such circumstances we in Northern Ireland will not be critical if Army manpower has to be switched to other regions of the United Kingdom that are under serious threat.
For us in Ulster the retention of the SAS is essential. Perhaps it might be possible to increase its strength as its special skills are not at the time being likely to be required to deal with security in England. This suggestion implies no lack of appreciation of the contribution made by all the Army units in Ulster, where they have developed effective methods and techniques of dealing with a variety of situations.
As an Ulster Unionist, I feel that I have a duty to all the troops to seek an assurance that on redeployment in England they will be permitted to use the same effective methods of riot control and, most important, an assurance that they will not be denied the protection of the specially developed clothing and equipment to which they have been accustomed.
We must also bear in mind the hardship which results from inadequate or hastily improvised movement arrangements in an emergency. May we be assured that adequate airlift capacity exists, or will be created, so that arrangements will work without any appearance of panic measures, which would in themselves have most undesirable consequences?
The Minister of State has given a detailed account of the Government's plans and intentions for the Army. Like the hon. and learned Member for Accrington, I have had some difficulty in interpreting the jargon of the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that we are both grateful to the Minister for the Army education section of his speech. Like most hon. Members I take the simple view that when politicians decide to use the Army as the cutting edge of their policies they have a corresponding duty—it is a

heavy duty—to ensure that the Army is supplied with the appropriate tools for the tasks with which it is presented. Far more important, we have to ensure, having committed it to specific roles and tasks, that it will have our consistent and unreserved backing and support.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), save to echo his tribute to the British Army in Northern Ireland, a tribute that will be echoed on the part of all hon. Members.
In the context of Northern Ireland I have a specific issue of military compensation to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. A constituent whose husband was murdered by the IRA at Warrenpoint has complained to me that, despite the lapse of time, she has not yet received the compensation to which she believes she is entitled. It is a matter of £5,000 and £500 for each child. It may be that the fault lies with the solicitor in question. I do not know. I believe that the sums of £5,000 and £500 are based on 1977 legislation. Should not those sums be indexed? This is an issue which I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is the longstop in the debate, to answer when he replies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Armed Forces (Mr. Philip Goodhart): There has been some correspondence on this issue. The £5,000 is an interim payment and will not be the final payment.

Mr. Critchley: The £5,000 is based on 1977 money values and there is a case in equity to ensure that that sum is indexed to present-day values. That is my argument.
When the Secretary of State began the defence review exercise he said that no options were to be ignored. That presumably meant that the position and strength of the Army, and the Rhine Army in particular, were to be scrutinised within the Ministry of Defence as carefully as the roles of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.
Information came to me in April from the Ministry of Defence that at that time the Secretary of State was considering a reduction in the Rhine Army of between one-third and one-half, which I wrote up in a newspaper article. Obviously, and to a great sense of relief, the Secretary of State altered his priorities so that the Army was protected while the Royal Navy was obliged to bear the brunt of the recently announced cuts.
I do not claim that that was the consequence of my vivid journalism. It was a consequence of the constraint exercised upon the Ministry of Defence by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular, and, of course, by the American and German Governments. All three combined to bring pressure to bear on the Secretary of State to ensure that British commitments in Europe were maintained at their existing level—the Treaty of Brussels level of approximately 55,000 men.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come down on the side of the concept of the short as opposed to the long war. One cannot say which of those two would be the more likely, although I believe that the short war is the war against which we have to ensure. In that case, if there are to be cuts, I think that the Government have got it just about right in that the cuts have fallen on the Royal Navy surface and support role rather than upon the Army in Germany.
It is of crucial importance that the British Army of the Rhine should be sufficiently strong, that there should be enough forces on the ground and that they should be sensibly deployed so that, were there to be a conventionally fought war in Europe—which is, after all, the most likely of any eventuality—we would be able to match that Soviet attack without immediate resort to battlefield nuclear weapons.
I have a deep suspicion that were NATO to be engaged against the Soviet Union in a conventionally fought conflict, and were NATO to be getting the worst of it—we are clearly the inferior side and, therefore, by definition we are more likely to get the worst of it, certainly in the initial stages—the decision to introduce nuclear weapons into the battlefield would be postponed indefinitely. One can imagine the circumstances at the NATO Council as Heads of State and Foreign Ministers have to decide whether to introduce for the first time the smaller nuclear weapon. One can imagine all the pressures of public opinion upon them, with London and other European cities in the process of evacuation. Knowing politicians as we do, we can see that their reaction is likely to be to postpone and delay.
The wisest of all strategies for the Soviet Union, were it to embark on the hazardous course of a conflict in Europe, would be a smash-and-grab with conventional forces—a war which would probably last for three, four or five days, which would result in the initial defeat of allied conventional forces. The Soviets would then offer negotiation. No Western nation could refuse that negotiation and we would find that we were negotiating from a position of grave weakness with the collapse of the morale of the Federal Republic of Germany as a consequence and, with it, presumably, the collapse of NATO as a whole.
From the Soviet viewpoint that would be the ideal scenario. The consequence would be the Finlandisation of Europe and the separation of America from Europe.
I shall refer only briefly to the Trident programme, as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am that rare bird in the Conservative Party—an agnostic on Trident, although I confess that there are two arguments in favour of Trident which the Government are unable to deploy. Those two arguments are these. First, Trident is a means to ensure this country against American abandonment. That is not the sort of view which our leaders wish to make public or to stress unduly. The fear of American abandonment, therefore, is one argument for the Trident force.
The second argument is that were we to possess an invulnerable independent nuclear deterrent, were Europe to be defeated in a major, conventionally fought war on the mainland of Europe, and were Britain to be threatened with invasion or attack by the Soviet Union, under those nightmare circumstances we could surrender our society intact and bargain with a victorious Soviet Union for a modicum of independence in political terms. Those are two, unadmitted, and strongest arguments in favour of an independent nuclear deterrent.
More interesting than the argument is the new political development in the House and in the country—the unprecedented collapse of the consensus between the Labour Party and the Conservative Government in their belief in an independent nuclear deterrent. Conservative

Members and the Secretary of State should be asking whether it is possible to set the Trident programme in stone between now and 1983 to prevent a future Labour Government from relieving themselves of the responsibilities which we have taken on. The advice which I have been given, for what it is worth, is that it will not be possible to set the programme in stone. If that is so, that is an important factor in making up one's mind.
Were the United States to abandon Europe, as is implied by the first of those two arguments, in my submission—here I quarrel with the- former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who made such a good speech in the defence debate the day before yesterday—the consequences for Europe would be, not that Europe would rearm as a consequence of American abandonment, but that Europe would disarm. That is my fear. The result of European disarmament would be the Finlandisation of Europe. Why should any British Government cast any doubt, implied or not, on the validity of the United States guarantee? After all, we have lived under it, and our security has been the gift of the United States since the setting up of NATO in 1948.
More important than United States' good intentions is the salient fact that it is American self-interest which compels the United States to keep up and refurbish the American-European alliance. What the Alliance has to fear is not that the Americans will abandon us, but that we will abandon the Americans. That is the real political development and change in Europe, which should give rise to great anxiety. There has been a movement of disarmament in Germany, Holland and Belgium. Fortunately, the French Government are more robust, as is seen by the recent statement of the French President in support of Chancellor Schmidt as reported today in the magazine Der Stern. None the less, nuclear apprehension is bringing about within Europe a strongly renewed feeling in favour of disarmament and disengagement.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am following this section of my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. He mentioned Germany, using his freedom as a Back Bencher. Does he agree that one of the strongest arguments for us having an independent deterrent is that if we did not, another European power would have to take on that role? Although the Germans would be extremely unwilling even to contemplate that at this stage, they would be the obvious choice. The implication is that Germany would become a nuclear power.

Mr. Critchley: The Germans have no intention of becoming a nuclear power. They are apparently content to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella. Frankly, they do not give a fig for the French independent nuclear deterrent, nor do they give a fig for the British independent nuclear deterrent. Their attitude is that if the British wish to spend the money, let them, but secretly they would prefer that our resources went to the Rhine Army and to conventional defence.
My analysis brings me back to the condition of the Labour Party. On radio last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) said that, were he to become Prime Minister, he would disarm the United Kingdom of its nuclear weapons—a gesture which he said would shame other nuclear powers into following suit. So extraordinary and incredible an assertion prompts me to make a couple of points.
First, were there to be a Labour Government presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, would he get his way with his Cabinet? Would he be able to dictate to his Cabinet a unilateral nuclear policy, when the majority of that Cabinet ought to be multilateralist? Secondly, assuming that the right hon. Gentleman gets his way, and the Labour Government become a unilateralist Government, what is the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position?
Britain could not remain a non-nuclear member of a non-nuclear NATO. It would be crazy to imagine that that were possible. NATO's strategy depends upon the first use of battlefield nuclear weapons. The whole concept of flexible response depends upon first use. It is a complete contradiction in terms to suggest that there could be such a thing as a non-nuclear NATO.
A non-nuclear—therefore, neutral—Britain, which is the object of this political exercise, would be the first step in the collapse of the NATO Alliance, which in its turn would bring about a fundamental revision in United States-Soviet relations.
At present, there is a revival of unilateralism both in Britain and elsewhere. There is a renewal of nuclear apprehension. What would happen were Britain to disarm unilaterally and become neutral? At worst the whole process of becoming neutral would make war more, rather than less likely, by making a relatively stable part of the world unstable. At best, neutrality would compromise our independence vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, because the balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union would be upset.
Perhaps Trident is only a relatively minor matter. Perhaps it does not matter whether we have it or not. On the other hand, our membership of NATO matters, and the real threat to the Government's defence policy comes from those who do not wish to be defended. We must combat unilateralism in all its forms—a political movement with defence and foreign policy objectives dressed up in a spurious moralism, the whole purpose of which is to upset the global balance of power.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), the Minister of State and others who have paid tribute to our Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. It goes without saying that no other army in the world could have prevailed with the same forbearance in the situation that our Armed Forces have faced in the Province.
I compliment my hon. and learned Friend on being honest enough to admit what many hon. Members in years gone by have never been prepared to admit, namely, that Armed Forces and Ministry of Defence jargon is incomprehensible. It does not mean a damned thing to the average man in the street. I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend brought that forcefully to the notice of the Minister.
It seems that the Minister has taken a crash course in this subject during the past month. I compliment him. He has done well to have made so much progress in such a short time, especially in bearing in mind the nonsense of the initials used by that Department.
I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the improvements in the Chieftain tank and the Challenger,

which will now replace the MBT80. At least we now know where we are going after spending many years in collaborative exercises discussing the future of the MBT.
I am sure that the Armed forces are looking forward with delight to the thermal imaging gunfighting system. It will be invaluable in night time and bad visibility work. I am pleased that the Tow infantry weapon is to be introduced in such numbers, as, indeed, is the Rapier self-propelled vehicle.
The Minister referred to the new communication system Ptarmigan and said that it would come into operation by the mid-1980s. That suggests a considerable slippage. How far has that system slipped, because it is vital that it comes into operation at the earliest possible moment?
I welcome the increase of 16,000 in the strength of the Territorial Army. That brings its establishment to 86,000. There is no better value anywhere in the defence sector than the Territorial Army. I believe that the new establishment will, in present-day circumstances, he quickly reached. However, I wonder whether the equipment will be available to be given to TA volunteers immediately they enlist. We are all aware that until comparatively recently Territorials were wearing 1939 webbing. Once they are established, it is essential that the Territorials have the best of equipment. They should have everything that is available to the Regular Army.
I thought that the Minister was somewhat complacent when he almost suggested that redundancies would be achieved by natural wastage. I have never known a time when manpower cuts in the defence programme have been achieved by natural wastage. Unfortunately, that is what happens when Governments face reality and take such decisions. We should not forget the effect that that has when Service men who have given many years of good service are suddenly faced with the uncertainty of the future, because, at the end of the day, that means redundancy in many cases. No matter how skilled a Service man might be, no one should imagine that he will find it easy to get a job in civilian life. I hope that it will be possible to achieve redundancy by natural wastage, but I have my doubts.
I had intended to comment on the success of exercise Crusader, but, in view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), I do not wish to get involved in the private quarrels of Conserative Members.
I was pleased that the Minister referred to the civilian employees of the Army, because behind every good soldier there is a good civilian. In fact, none of our Armed Forces could operate without the valuable support of civilian personnel.
I have mentioned the Army in Northern Ireland, but I forgot to mention specifically the one regiment which, in spite of all the criticisms that it has suffered, does a superb job and takes the weight off the regular mainland and Continental battalions. It is the Ulster Defence Regiment.
Equally, I think that the Army and the Air Force have done a great job in Belize. I like to think that the very presence of the British Army in that country, which is not a pleasant place in which to serve, has prevented the worst excesses of the colonels of Guatemala. I am certain that without the protection of the British forces those excesses would have taken place. In Cyprus, as well, the British Army does a superb job as part of the United Nations' peacekeeping force.
I wish to refer to the Royal ordnance factories, and I should declare a dual interest. First, more than 1,200 members of my union, the General and Municipal Workers Union, work in Birtley Royal ordnance factory. Many are personal friends and many are constituents. I have no desire to see them staring unemployment in the face because of the dogmatic detestation of public industries of the Prime Minister and her cohorts.
Only yesterday we heard a statement by the Minister for Consumer Affairs about gas showrooms, and we saw the relish with which she made that statement. The combination of the right hon. Lady and the Prime Minister has done more to undermine Women's Lib than any 10,000 male chauvinist pigs could have done.
Birtley Royal ordnance factory is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). He wanted to be here to talk about the Royal ordnance factories and particularly Birtley, but the illness of a close relative has caused him to be absent.
There can be little doubt that the Government have it firmly in mind, one way or another, to dispose of the ROFs to private industry. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would dispute that. The hiving-off of the Royal ordnance factories from the Civil Service can only be to satisfy the ideological spasms of the Tory Party and for the political purpose of reducing the number of civil servants, with little or no thought for the needs of our defence forces.
I talk with the hindsight of almost five years as a Defence Minister. I am convinced that the proper place for the Royal ordnance factory facilities is within the Ministry of Defence. Their primary purpose is to provide for the needs of our Armed Forces, and that is why I so strongly hold these views. A purely commercial undertaking is concerned primarily, as it must be, with the profit motive—I am not saying anything evil of that—and no such an organisation can possibly meet the needs of the Army.
The factories must do short runs of production and carry out other non-economic activities demanded by the Government, which they cannot refuse to undertake. Does anyone seriously suggest that things of that sort are likely to find much favour in a private firm? I cannot believe that that is likely. The Royal ordnance factory organisation, within the ambit of the Ministry of Defence, was able to cope with the sudden loss of massive Iranian orders by cutting staff by agreement with the unions and the work force. How many private firms inside or outside the defence industry could have coped so well with such a catastrophic blow?
With the exception of one recent non-industrial dispute at Bishopton, the ROFs have been remarkably free from industrial action. That is because the workers have a sense of job security and a fall-back position on pay and conditions, which results from being part of the wider family of the Ministry of Defence and Civil Service.
Piecemeal privatisation would inevitably lead to a complete change in the attitudes of the work force, and any change for the worse would have a telling effect on the primary purpose of the factories, which is to serve our Armed Forces.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the ROFs

through his ministerial experience, and I respect his concern about his constituents' future, but he is painting the scene as though the Government intend to sell the ROFs like so many gas showrooms. Nothing that I have heard from the Minister or seen in the White Paper can lead one to conclude that that is the Government's attitude.
On the contrary, the White Paper says:
At the same time the Government will seek to carry further our partnership with the private sector in the support area, especially where there are export opportunities.
Surely the hon. Gentleman should support anything that will help to expand the job opportunities and underpin the security of ROF employees.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman can call it what he likes, but an extension of the partnership with the private sector means to me flogging off whatever is profitable. If there are two or three ROFs that are making money and look like making more, they will be ripe candidates for any flogging off.
The taxpayer has had £122 million in profits from the factories. During my time as a Defence Minister the ROFs trebled their sales. They have earned £516 million in exports—more than half their total sales—and they have twice won the Queen's award for export achievement. That is a record which the public do not appreciate.
I do not suggest that there is no scope for change or no room for developing the ROF organisation. The establishment of the trading fund can be seen as a useful development, but it cannot be argued that the present system is the ultimate in structuring or that the method of managing the organisation must never be changed.
I cannot believe that it would make sense to break up a body, the production of which, from factory to factory, is so closely integrated to serve its main role. The organisation must remain one entity. I also do not believe that any useful purpose could be served by taking the ROFs out of the ambit of the Civil Service.
A better solution would be to recognise the success of the factories, accept the usefulness of the trading fund and examine ways of building on that proven success by any necessary and advantageous modifications of the present system, rather than by any radical change or surgery. The organisation should be given extra powers and functions to enable it to operate even more efficiently, rather than the reverse, which would result from some of the possible options—I put it no higher than that—that are being proposed.

6 pm

Mr. John Browne: Having served as a professional soldier for some 10 years and taken a keen interest in defence since then, I view defence with great respect as a highly complex, sophisticated and dynamic subject full of changes in technology, organisation and strategies. Furthermore, it is a subject of which important areas are of necessity shrouded in secrecy. Members of the House and others outside must remember that, quite correctly, much vital information on strategic decisions is simply not available outside a circle of senior Ministers. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will accept my general questions in the spirit in which they are asked and not in any way as personal criticisms.
With that in mind, I believe that within cash limits the defence White Paper is an excellent document. It is very clever. It is highly flexible and allows for potential future expansion. It is also brave. A great many hard decisions


have been taken in this review. In short, I see it as a dramatic review, which has been skilfully presented. I believe that it will play a major role in ensuring that if—God forbid—we have to go to war, we shall do so with up-to-date weapons, organisation and tactics.
I was particularly impressed by the first paragraph, and even more so by the first two sentences, of the review. The first paragraph begins:
The first duty of any British Government is to safeguard our people in peace and freedom. In today's world that cannot be done without a major defence effort.
Those are two classic statements. I strongly support both.
In considering the Army, however, I wish to examine our overall aims and the resulting strategic priorities within the cash limits in the light of the threat which we all know exists not tomorrow but today. We all know of the massive build-up of Warsaw Pact forces in both men and equipment and of the sophistication of that equipment. We all know of the existence of the nuclear deterrent and of the arms race. I believe that the post-war period has shown, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, a key shift of emphasis in Russian strategy away from a plan for open direct assault on a massive scale on the central front towards an indirect approach—towards the use of subversion, the exploitation of terrorism and the use of surrogate forces. There has been a major shift of emphasis away from direct aggression on the central front towards a global threat to NATO.
The real threat now exists that, while our Armed Forces face an overwhelming but passive Warsaw Pact Army on the European central front, we could be starved out or starved into submission by a Russian blockade of oil in the Gulf or even of strategic raw materials around the Cape of Good Hope. Today the risk of economic military strangulation or even emasculation is probably greater than the threat of a direct Russian assault on the European central front—all this under a nuclear umbrella and even in a state of so-called strategic peace without any actual declaration of war.
I believe that while we concentrate on the conventional and nuclear defence of Europe from land-based assault on the central front, the Russians are concentrating on internal subversion, the exploitation of terrorism wherever it arises in the West and the strategic strangulation and emasculation of NATO by means of a global indirect threat.
If my theory is correct, I wish to ask two serious questions about our order of strategic priorities. They are listed as, first, nuclear defence; secondly, defence of the United Kingdom; thirdly, the central front; and, fourthly, the defence of the Eastern Atlantic. Personally, I see the Eastern Atlantic as crucial to the defence of the United Kingdom. I do not understand how these have been arrived at as discrete priorities. I see them as far more integrated than they appear when listed.
In arguing this, I assume that our overall aim is obviously peace, but not peace at any price. I assume that the aim is for peace with honour, that is to say, without sacrificing our sovereignty. Switzerland has achieved such a peace for many centuries, but Switzerland maintains very strong defences. Indeed, the Swiss seem to hold to the old Roman adage "If you want peace, prepare for war". In Switzerland, every able-bodied man is trained for war, for the defence of his country, in military units or in civil defence, which is an integral part of defence.
If we aim for peace with honour, what price does my hon. Friend the Minister attach to peace in the 1980s? What is the price of peace in a decade of stress and of probable nuclear proliferation? Can such a price be subject to cash limits, especially when they are set by the Treasury rather than by the Ministry of Defence? I do not believe that peace can be purchased within cash limits and remain credible. I accept, and indeed welcome, the powerful drive for cost-effectiveness within the Ministry of Defence, but I do not accept that cash limits have a place in buying international peace insurance.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I am listening with interest and approval to what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he believe that the famous figure of 3 per cent. was reached on the basis of what was needed for our defences or by a consensus of what everyone would agree to pay irrespective of our needs?

Mr. Browne: I personally feel that it was the latter. I believe that it was the largest politically acceptable amount, rather than the amount dictated by the needs on the ground. I believe that while it takes care of inflation, it by no means takes care of the escalation in improved technology. That is the battle. An essential part of the battle is to maintain the technological lead and to equip our Armed Forces with the right equipment, the right weapons systems and the right control systems. I therefore believe that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is indeed the latter.
In the late 1960s the Socialist Government decided to withdraw our forces from the Persian Gulf despite the pleas of the Arab Gulf sheikhs for us to stay. As a result of the 1960s and 1970s version of cash limits, we withdrew rather than pay for the defence of what we knew were our vital interests. At that time, 80 per cent. of British Petroleum's oil reserves were in the Gulf. Today, the countries of OECD, of which we are a member, pay approximately $160,000 million to OPEC for oil. That sum, which represents demand for goods and services, is withdrawn direct from the economies of the OECD countries. Only very little of that money is successfully recycled, so it is probably the major cause of the present massive unemployment in the OECD countries.
Would the oil price hike of 1973 and the subsequent operation of an oil cartel have happened if we had not withdrawn from what we knew at the time was an area of vital interest? I do not agree that we always need to have the capability for sustained action in such areas as the Gulf. If properly supported diplomatically, a military presence can and does have the effect of deterring Communist aggression, particularly in a world of effective nuclear deterrence.
I believe that defence cash limits in the 1960s effectively cost us a fortune in the 1970s, and they will go on costing us massive unemployment well into the 1980s. Indeed, cash limits have no place in defence or law and order, nor do they truly fit the intention of the first two sentences in the defence review.
If our aim truly is peace and we see at the same time a global Russian threat, what should be our order of strategic priorities? I noted with great interest the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I believe that our overriding priority must be, as it has always been, the defence of the United Kingdom. I do not understand how nuclear becomes the first priority


and defence of the United Kingdom the second. The defence of the United Kingdom is both conventional—maintaining our sea and air routes and adequate ground forces—and nuclear. Nuclear weapons—sadly, but it is a fact—are part of a modern, integrated defence weapons system.
Part of the defence of the United Kingdom must be NATO. We should not stand alone. It has always been one of our major attributes that we have the ability to pull together allies. Therefore, I see a priority for maintaining our commitment to, and the morale of, NATO.
As I have said, we cannot seek to defend ourselves alone. We must maintain and build alliances. Therefore, we need to maintain adequate forces and morale and have the ability to reinforce on the central front. Defence of the United Kingdom should be our overwhelming defence priority. We should not consider the nuclear defence of the United Kingdom, the central front and the Eastern Atlantic as discrete priorities. They are all integral to the defence of the United Kingdom.
Why is the nuclear defence priority ahead of the defence of the United Kindom? It seems to me extraordinary if that nuclear effort is for the defence of the United Kingdom. If the priorities were called for again today, would they be the same as those given a year ago?
Why is the central front ahead of the Eastern Atlantic, when there is a growing global threat? People ask "What is the use of the Eastern Atlantic if the central front collapses?" I understand that argument, but there is the risk that while we have adequate protection on the central front we can be starved to death by the loss of our air and sea communications and our ability to resupply. Europe could collapse without a shot being fired in central Europe—indeed, almost without war being declared—as a result of the global threat to the sea lanes.
In short, the price of peace is dictated, as it always has been, by needs and total resources. There is no true place for cash limits in the credible defence of our country and the beliefs for which we stand.
Our strategic priorities do not yet meet the global threat on their present discrete basis. The priorities should be integrated. If my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that I am wrong, I hope that he will tell me why. If I am not wrong, will he admit that our strategic priorities should be recast so that they do not allow us to fall into the making of erroneous decisions?
Apart from my two main concerns, I strongly support my right hon. Friend's general thrust in the defence review—in particular his drive for modern weapons systems with sustained capability. I believe that his incisive mind has already prevented us from continuing with some outdated ideas. How often, in the last war and many others, have we gone to war with the weapons, attitudes and tactics of the war before? How much has it cost us in blood unnecessarily spilt?
I heartily support my right hon. Friend's drive for cost-effectiveness. I hope that he will ruthlessly investigate such matters as the Procurement Executive, which is very top-heavy and almost encourages expense. For instance, I notice in my travels that members of the Inspectorate of Establishments go round to inspect units refuse their hospitality and stay in hotels, at £42 a day. These may be small matters, but they reflect an attitude towards cost-effectiveness, an attitude that I find intolerable.
We should look at the tail of all the Armed Forces. In 1904 we had an Army of 280,000 men, in 170 infantry battalions, 50 cavalry regiments and 14 corps. Today we have 140,000 men, in 50 infantry battalions, only 16 armoured regiments, but 30 corps, all with huge headquarters, officers' messes, bands and so on, all drawing vital resources from the teeth arms and their weapons systems.
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) looking quizzical. Perhaps I am criticising his corps. I do not mean to be critical of the service that the corps give, but do we need so many of them? For example, is there really a justified need for the army Legal Corps, with one major-general, two brigadiers and 47 officers? Could it not be combined with another corps, and have no major-general and no brigadiers?
I spoke just now of the price of peace. I believe that the price to this country, as a non-aggressor, must be such that we afford—rather than merely can afford—Armed Services that will make an attack upon us too expensive for a would-be opponent. I see an independent nuclear deterrent as a vital and integrated part of that price. I support 100 per cent. the decision to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent.
My only concern is the question, mooted recently, of the greatly increased potential effectiveness of energised chemical lasers in space. I believe that the American Congress has before it a report that says that lasers with a potential destructive anti-missile hitting capability could be with us by 1985. That is a matter of concern. Is that factor under constant consideration? Will the Government maintain a close watch on the Americans, on what they are doing about laser and on the evasive action that they are taking?
I much respect my right hon. Friend's bravery in facing and tackling the problems of the Royal ordnance factories and the Naval dockyards. That issue has been put off by successive Secretaries of State for tens of years merely through fear, which has resulted in inaction. That has compounded the problem. Many loyal and highly skilled people are now being made redundant in the midst of a recession. That is sad, because the steps could have been taken more gently and at a better time. We are now paying the price. Nevertheless, I admire my right hon. Friend's bravery in finally tackling that problem. Portsmouth is near my constituency, and it will be hard hit despite the fact that new high technology businesses in the area will benefit and will create profitable employment.
The biggest problem in Portsmouth and in some of the other Army areas is the availability of land. Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm his willingness and intention to co-operate with the Hampshire co-ordinating committee in ensuring that the maximum amount of land is made available to private enterprise, in order to lessen the dreadful unemployment that will occur in the Portsmouth dockyard area?
I was pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend intends to improve the night sights of tanks and hand-held anti-tank weapons. Will he reassure us that the rate of fire of the hand-held weapons is being enhanced. No one knows what will happen, but when I was a soldier I went on exercises in which there were marvellous fields of fire in open country. There was time to loose off six rounds from a Karl Gustav. However, in war, a soldier would probably have his head down for a long time and there would be smoke. Therefore, hand-held anti-tank weapons need a


high rate of fire. Attention should be paid to that, as opposed merely to increased maximum range. I was delighted to hear that the Government want to make the maximum use of computer technology in target acquisition, communications and control/intelligence information processing. Speed always has been, and always will be, a vital principle of war.
I have great respect for the Territorial Army. It is an essential part of our total defence but only a part. I do not see how it can replace part of a small professional Army, which is already over-stretched. We always hear that the Territorial Army is exceptionally good value. It is, but I just hope that people do not seize on that fact and use it as a cheap alternative. I have my serious suspicions.
In his review my right hon. Friend has made an important switch of emphasis by replacing about 7,000 Regular soldiers with about twice that number of Territorials. Of course, the Territorial Army consists of excellent soldiers.
I also agree that Exercise Crusader was a success, but in today's world of high technology weapons to be used against a sophisticated enemy, can two Territorial Army soldiers—with a maximum of 42 days training each year, and with little knowledge of the ground that they will fight over on the central front—be anywhere near the equivalent of one professional Regular soldier who is highly trained, lives in the combat zone and has a good knowledge of the ground that he will fight over? I think not. With all due respect, how can two Territorial soldiers be the equivalent of one Regular professional soldier under those conditions? If they are the equivalent, then there is something sadly wrong with the Regular Army.
In addition to those problems, there are others. Recruiting in the Territorial Army is, at present, good. But is recruitment likely to continue at such a rate? The amount of training has increased from 38 to 42 days. However, 42 days was the total in 1979. The figure has just been reinstated. I have heard a rumour that travel allowances have been cut in the Territorial Army. Is that so? In addition, do we really mean business when we say that we shall spend money on the Territorial Army to ensure that its soldiers are not second-class citizens?
Thirdly, and most seriously, I come to the subject of availability. The mobilisation of the Territorial Army will be read, internationally, as a significant military escalation. I can foresee generals in Europe asking for more soldiers in order to cope with increased tension but, at the same time politicians in England being too afraid to execute Queen's Order No. 2, to mobilise them. The possibility of that would appear to lower the nuclear threshold. I strongly support a major increase in reserves and in civil defence, but I am worried about the apparent switching of Territorials into a regular role. Furthermore, will the Minister please give an assurance that not one Regular Service man or woman will be made redundant while a civil servant occupies a job that could, 1 repeat could, be filled by a Regular Service man or woman? I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to stop recruiting, because that would discriminate against youth employment, but to use this opportunity to cream off and to raise standards in the Armed Forces.
In summary, I believe that the price of peace cannot be determined within or by cash limits. I do not see that cost-effectiveness—which I heartily applaud—necessarily means cash limits. I fail to see how our current strategic priorities meet the present global threat. I hope that I shall

be given the assurance for which I asked about raising standards in the Armed Forces by creaming off rather than by stopping recruiting. I hope that the Government will inform the House about laser technology and its threat to our strategic deterrent. As regards cuts in the Army, particularly in Hampshire, people are worried about the effect of the cuts that are mooted. May we be told exactly what will happen as soon as possible? Finally, may we have the assurance that I requested, that no Regular Service men or women will be made redundant while civil servants occupy jobs that could be filled by Regular personnel?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I should tell the House that 10 hon. Members wish to catch my eye. That means that hon. Members should speak for about 15 minutes each, if such restraint can be shown.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I have listened attentively to the debate. I was under the impression that the debate was about the Army. However, some hon. Members' speeches have ranged far wider than that and should have been made on Tuesday or in other defence debates. I shall certainly not speak for quarter of an hour, because I merely wish to make one or two salient points.
As our first line of defence, priority should be given to the conventional forces and not to any mythical role that nuclear weapons may have. Our first line of defence should be in Europe and not in rocket sites or submarines in the Atlantic.
I was glad that the Minister referred to the constructive role that the Army plays in various parts of the world. All too often we consider the Army only as an instrument of destruction. Some months ago I had the privilege of going with a Conservative Member on behalf of the House, to a small island called Dominica. In 1979 it was smashed to smithereens by probably the worst hurricane in the history of the West Indies. The island was wrecked. All its crops were wiped out. Two-hundred-year-old coconut trees were uprooted, and the island's banana crop was destroyed.
The first thing that those people saw was one of our frigates, which brought immediate help, that was closely followed by a unit of Royal Engineers. Anyone who has seen the island knows the task that the engineers undertook. There is one road on the island, which crosses the mountains from the capital to the port. That road was made usable again by the efforts of the Royal Engineers. No praise could be too high for their work. The Dominicans lavished praise on them. They were very appreciative of what had been done.
I wonder whether we could extend field training and allow the Army to take a more positive role in some of the underdeveloped countries, especially in engineering and allied work.
I was disturbed to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the leader of the Ulster Unionists, who wanted to see the Army, once again, as the policing force on the United Kingdom mainland. I deplore that idea in any cirumstances. It would be disastrous. I should be the first to say that no other Army could have done so patiently the job that ours has


done in Northern Ireland and suffered the abuse that it has from ill-informed world press and media. That abuse has probably emanated mostly from the Irish-American lobby in Boston and New York.
I do not take my stand about the Army not being used as a policing force because I am against the Army. I am not. As much as anyone in the House, I deplore the problem that has arisen in many of our cities. However, to cast the Army quickly into such a role would be the worst possible way to deal with it. The Army is not trained for police work. Although the Army holds the ring in Northern Ireland it is clear that both Labour and Conservative Governments see the Army's policing role in Northern Ireland as diminishing. Wherever possible that role is being handed back as quickly as possible to the civilian police force, which is better trained to deal with the problems.
My colleague the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) spoke at length about the Royal ordnance factories. My union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, covers the major part of the work force of the industrial servants in the ROFs. Having spent the last war as an apprentice manufacturing arms, from the ill-fated Churchill tank to field and naval guns, I know a little about the subject. The Royal ordnance factories are the base that should always be there—immovable and beyond interference from outside forces.
The Mallabar report was commissioned six years ago to consider the future of the ROFs. Certain proposals were made and carried out to make the ROFs into trading funds. It is odd that after only six years we are again interfering with the Royal ordance factories. Since that report was initiated, the ROFs have earned the taxpayer a profit of £122 million. Between 1974 and 1978, sales more than trebled from £81 million to £284 million. They earned more than £516 million in exports, which was more than half the total sales. The ROFs have twice won the Queen's award for export achievement. That record is second to none, and it has been achieved by the 22,000 people who work in the Royal ordnance factories.
I cannot understand the reason for hiving-off these factories. The Minister could have been more forthcoming. It is possible that the Under-Secretary will tell us more, but the Minister did not tell us what the Government have decided to do. A successful organisation, based on the figures that I have quoted, its know-how and ability to provide logistics and replacements quickly, should be given better consideration and should not be kept in the dark.
On Tuesday there was a massive lobby at the House by people from the Royal ordnance factories and the dockyards that are being closed. My main concern is with the large ROF in Leeds, at Barnbow. That forms a major part of the successful trading figures. Despite the hiccup of losing the massive order when the Shah of Iran was dethroned, the factories have managed, with accommodated wastage, to keep a flow and to remain successful.
What are the reasons for the Government's determination to proceed with this policy? I find them difficult to understand. Any Army of today must have its replacements ready in wartime, with the capacity for destruction of each other's Armed Forces, replacements must be made available immediately. I have heard various

hon. Members suggest that private industry could fulfil that role. It could not. I am not aware that the private arms industry has patriotism as its top priority.
When I went to Europe on a defence visit some months ago, I visited the Harrier strike jet force and one of the armoured corps maintenance sections. The engineers in the private sector, because of a national wage claim, had struck on two successive Mondays. As a consequence, the Harrier jet force was being jeopardised because the engineers in the private sector were not supplying one of the pumps for the jets. The tank section said that the strike of the engineers in the North-East was affecting delivery of engine replacements for Chieftain tanks.
What is the reason for this mythical idea that the private arms sector can be trusted all along the line and will deliver the goods? I say that it should not be entrusted with that role. Can anyone in the House stand up and, with his hand on his heart, say that the arms manufactured in this country did not kill our forces during the war when the arms were used by someone else? There is no patriotism in the private arms industry. Everyone knows that it was the arms industry of this country that built the original Japanese Navy. We know what that did to us in the last war before the Americans were brought in.
Let us look at this realistically. I do not think that the hiving-off of the ROFs, which provide the foundationstone for our Armed Forces with quick replenishment in the field, finds much favour with the generals to whom I have spoken. They knew that they had direct access to them and that the priority would be the defence of the country and getting the equipment to the front as quickly as possible. The more that the manufacture of defence equipment is hived off, and the more that we allow the private sector, whose main motive is profit, to become involved, the more we shall weaken that important component of our defence.
The Minister said that he trusts the private sector to perform admirably. It will take over the role and there will be no problem. When I questioned the Prime Minister last week, she said the same thing. However, certain of our main armaments can never be produced at a profit. Plessey or Vickers will not produce equipment at a loss simply because the Armed Forces need it. The ROFs produce certain commodities on which there is no possibility of making a profit.
Finally, the work force is entitled to know what is happening. When the study group was formed last year, I objected because it did not contain one representative from the work people directly involved. It may have contained trade unionists from the ROFs generally, but at no stage in the consultations had representatives of the works committee of the shop floor been involved or asked what they thought. It is all very well asking national trade unionists who run industries, but, as an ex-shop steward, I know that the best way to find out what the work force in the factory feels is to ask the works committee. Members of the works committee will let it be known what the work force will accept and will negotiate on its behalf. It is not always too ready to follow or accept what area or national full-time trade union officers would agree on its behalf. The works committee has been treated shabbily.
It is unfortunate that the Minister did not say what the Government have in mind. Do they intend to hive off a successful factory like Barnbow and others, selling them to the main competitor, which is Vickers or, will it be


more of an equity scheme, with the private sector putting in money and the Government having a holding interest of, say, 51 per cent., which may be more acceptable?
About 7,000 to 8,000 people came here to represent the work force, which shows how worried people are. They should be told what is happening. The matter should not be left in abeyance. Otherwise, it may be thought that the Government have made a decision solely on the basis of political dogma and are looking for an acceptable way to carry it out. The Government owe the workers an answer as expeditiously as possible.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall comply with your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be as brief as I can.
The debate is on the Army, but it brings us to the fundamental point that the Conservative Party is committed to the defence of the realm. We cannot face a global and, in particular, an Eastern bloc threat alone, and without allies. The Minister will have to disagree with me, but I believe that we should spend more on defence. Although I agree that many economies can be effected within the Armed Services, that does not prevent us from spending more on our total defence budget, including the Army. We have a lesson to learn in that respect from the Russians.
I wish to deal mainly with the territorial and auxiliary forces. It is clear from the debate of 22 June that the House endorses the independent nuclear deterrent as a primary method of defending the realm and one that has preserved peace for over 30 years. An independent nuclear deterrent serves two purposes. First, it helps our NATO allies to know that they do not stand alone and are not dependent on America; we are together with them to give them extra strength. No one knows how long the United States will stay with us, as I said in the previous debate. A seven-year tenure for the President means that policies could change. However, it is a very important factor.
I shall not enter into the argument of spending the money for Trident on tanks. It is irrelevant and unrealistic, as was brought out in the defence debate.
However, we need more money, and it should be supplied by our allies and friends in Europe. Our commitments range throughout Europe, including Spain, Greece and Turkey. They are enormous. We are being expected to spend more on our defence budget than is reasonable in the present economic circumstances. Perhaps certain other nations spend more in percentage terms. I know that all sorts of arguments are produced.

Mr. John: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument as best I can. He began by saying that we should spend more on defence. He now says that we are expected to spend too much on defence and that our allies should help. Does he mean that our NATO allies should contribute towards any extra money that we may spend on defence?

Dr. Glyn: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I believe that, in general, we should spend more money, but we should press our allies to help us in that additional expenditure. I am not arguing that they should make up the money penny for penny or halfpenny for halfpenny, but Britain is being called upon to spend too much and other nations should spend more.
Whether it is a short or long war, in the end the battle is always fought on the ground, and it is the Army who will have to fulfil that role. In the short time available, I shall not go into the replacement of tanks and anti-tank guns. I wish to deal with general strategic issues.
I have one important question for the Minister. If we had to bring our troops back from Northern Ireland, is it correct that the expenditure on rehousing and re-equipping would be considerable? In passing, I pay tribute to the tremendous amount of work done by the Army in Northern Ireland and in Belize.
I turn to the reserve forces, which are dealt with on page 14 of the White Paper. We cannot go for national service. It is too difficult. We know all the problems. It would be extremely difficult to persuade the electorate that national service is necessary, although I and many of my colleagues may believe differently. We therefore have to expand the Territorial Army. It is essential to produce a force capable of reinforcing our BAOR commitments and also of home defence, if that should be necessary.
Secondly, we should adopt the idea put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) of a register of doctors, engineers and others who are ready and able to participate in military operations. There should be a central register so that they are available at very, very short notice. I do not say that they should necessarily have a commitment.
With regard to the Territorial Army, two problems exist. I know that the Minister will take note of these. The difficulty has always been that the big firms can let people off, whereas the small firms find it extremely difficult. I do not know whether, even by making it legal to let one's men go, that is possible. It is extremely difficult. One of the ways in which this can be overcome is by going back to a system, which I experienced for 17 years, of supplementary and emergency reserve. That allows men to do a month or three weeks service, which suits them and their jobs.
That will enable men outside the general circle to serve in the territorial forces. Most men like to serve with their colleagues. I am very glad to see that over the years men have gone out in units and groups together. But some individuals find that the drill days are not possible and that the periods allocated to camps are not convenient for their firms. I should like those men to be able to do their fortnight, three weeks or a month with a regular or territorial unit. I am sure that that would be an extremely useful way of getting additional recruits. Many of the men in that category are particularly interested in military service and in doing their job in the best possible way.
I hope that the Minister will ensure, as he said earlier on, that not only will the Territorial Army not be treated as second-class soldiers but that they will be provided with first-class equipment. I hope that he will give more latitude with regard to time.
Those leaving the forces early, particularly officers of a senior rank, should have a commitment to a longer period of service per year so that their services would be far more valuable at a time when we need to call upon them. If we are to defend the country we cannot be tied to cash limits. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) said about cash limits. We must measure our expenditure, not by the Treasury but by safety of the constituents we represent.
I thank the Minister for the written answer on 8 August when he confirmed that the Victoria barracks in my


constituency would be completed, by 1984, thereby allowing a battalion of foot guards to take up residence in my constituency. It will be a great historic step and extremely helpful to the Guards Division which will be called upon to be used more and more not only on ceremonial duties but on active service overseas. I thank the Minister very much for that assurance on behalf of my constituents.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: One of the surprising aspects of this debate so far has been the insensitivity of Government Back Benchers to the need to take a reasonable time in presenting their case. One Government Back Bencher spoke for longer than the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I do not wish to deny anybody the democratic right to speak, but hon. Members, even on the Government side, wish to contribute to the debate and time is limited. I do not question anybody's professional judgment as a soldier. The more one is in the House the more one appreciates the importance of succinct speeches such as that made by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn).
I wish to make two or three points, and I shall do so as briefly as possible. The Minister will know of my concern about the possible privatisation of the ordnance factories. I hope that if that happens, some account will be taken of the fact that they have made a tremendous contribution to developing skill. The engineering apprenticeship schemes that operate in those factories must be allowed to continue if the plants are put on a private basis.
The Minister mentioned the new hardware that is to be given to the Forces. He was obviously aware, as we all are, that this means that there will be new and more sophisticated computer systems. I hope therefore, that under all circumstances, the "buy British" principle will be maintained, and that a strong reason will be given if it is not possible to do so. Let us give a boost to British computer systems by using them wherever possible within the Armed Forces.
I wish to say only in respect of the Army cuts that I am keen to note that 16,000 more recruits are required in the Territorial Army. Within our democracy some people are unilateralists, some are multilaterists and a few are pacifist. But many of us are prepared to defend the country. A lot of people, partcularly young people, still have an ideal and a belief, and wish to serve in Her Majesty's Forces and contribute to a good life for themselves while helping the nation. Therefore, it is sad to realise that recruitment has stopped. Nowhere has that been felt more than in the Northern region.
A spokesman for Northern Command stated the other day that there would be no more recruitment of young people. That has sent a wave of sadness and some despair among many young people who have already passed their medicals for the Forces. They have already been trained at school in preparation for entering a period of service. I can give examples to the Minister of constituents who will be told now that there is virtually no possibility of their being offered a career in the Army. These are lads—and, I might say, some lasses as well—of good quality.
Some young men who have come out of the Forces have realised that they are more suited to life in the Army and

would like to rejoin. They are of non-commissioned rank and their commanding officers would dearly like to take them on again. But unfortunately they have received letters saying that they cannot go back. I have made representations on their behalf, but the Minister has stated clearly that there is no possibility in the near future that these men, who have already received training for the profession, will be taken back into the Forces. They all appreciate my efforts. They also appreciate the Minister's decision about the cuts.
May I still be parochial and mention the role of the Territorial Army? The North-East has been a traditional recruiting area for the regiments going back over 300 years. There is a tradition of service in the territorial forces. In the county of Northumberland the territorial battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is fully equipped and has acquitted itself well over the years. I feel that we could consider in the Tyne and Wear area the formation of another battalion—a territorial battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. I think that we would get the recruits from among young men who cannot join the Forces now and from others who want to join on a part-time basis. I ask the Minister, when considering the formation of these units, to consult the people in the region to ascertain whether the area from the mouth of the Tyne to the Northumberland border can be made a recruiting base from which I am fairly confident that he will obtain with the minimum of fuss a first-class second reserve battalion that performs with maximum efficiency.
I do not say that it was snide, but there has been an indirect reference to Army bands. I wish to conclude my remarks on a musical note. I become irritated, as I am sure Ministers and other hon. Members must become irritated, at seeing repetitive questions on the Order Paper relating to bands in the British Forces. I have always had a high regard for the musicianship, the tradition and the style—one can almost say the panache—of these bands that are the admiration of the world. I suggest that, in these days of gloom, we should provide some lightheartedness. The critics of the bands should be told that members of these bands need not only to be first-class musicians but they also have to be good soldiers. I urge that the bands should be seen on display, particularly in this Royal year. It is a matter of regret that one has to go to West Germany to hear them. The Germans hear them more often than we do in this country.
It was a wise decison to increase the size of the Territorial Army. I believe that more than cost effectiveness is obtained from our reserve forces. I should like to see them given every encouragement. This debate should be sufficient to give them encouragement to fulfil the task for which they are equipped and to bring credit to the nation.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly support the gracious remarks of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) about Army bands. They form an important part of the Army's tradition. They are good for morale. They are popular with the public. As the hon. Gentleman says, they give a great deal of delight to people in West Germany, who hear more of their playing than do people in this country.
I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that all recruitment in the North had stopped, in view of the fine qualities that people from the North have displayed


in the British Army for a long time. One recalls from the last war the fine traditions of the 50th Northumbrian Division. When one hears of the shortage of skilled men in the Army and the reservoir of skilled people in the North-East, one wonders whether the Army cannot help itself and also the unemployment problem. No doubt the Minister will refer to what seems a rather short-sighted attitude.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this matter relates not only to the North of England but to the South as well? Hundreds of youngsters who are keen to joint the Armed Forces, and who have been promised places, are now being told that no places are available. Similar conditions prevail in both areas.

Mr. Johnson Smith: That is the problem that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has outlined to the House. One has to consider the high cost of equipment. There is a limit to expenditure. One cannot have the equipment and the men. There is a trade-off between equipment and men. I do not wish to embarrass my right hon. Friend. However, it seems sad that there should be this cut-off at a time when a reservoir of skilled labour and people with a fine apprenticeship tradition exists in the North-East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has advocated that the Government should have no cash limit on defence. The message should not go out from the House that hon. Members feel that there is no need for financial discipline. There must be such discipline. The Secretary of State for Defence cannot have carte blanche to spend what he likes. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester should consider what would happen if the budget were increased by £1,000 million. The Secretary of State for Social Services would have to say he was sorry, but the Government had decided to spend so much on defence that pensions would not be upgraded in line with the cost of living.
It can, of course, be argued that what the military needs the nation demands. Is that true? I am not sure that such an analysis is so correct that we should give carte blanche to the Secretary of State for Defence. I respect the wish of those who want to provide the Armed Forces with the equipment they need and the country with the defence that it needs but the motion that has been tabled by some of my hon. Friends to that effect is the wrong approach.
The Government have shown considerable courage in their review of defence. They have given the nation extraordinarily good value for money. I welcome particularly the manner in which they have cut out some of the tail of the Army. I realise that the reduction of a divisional headquarters in the BOAR involving 6,000 men may impose a strain on supplying the needs of Northern Ireland, but I suspect that among those 6,000 there are a number of people in the tail of the Army, which needs to be reduced. As a consequence, the Minister is now able to say that he can strengthen the combat efficiency of the British Army of the Rhine. I believe that that is the right course.
Early in the 1970s, it was possible to say that the British Army of the Rhine was an army with the highest morale and the highest degree of professionalism, the best trained and the best equipped. I do not think it can be claimed that, as the 1970s progressed, it achieved quite the same standards. There was a slip in terms of equipment and the

ability to train. That had some effect on the morale of the Army, particularly on the younger officer and the trained NCO. The Government are to be congratulated on the decision that they have taken to release more resources to re-equip the British Army of the Rhine so that once again it can achieve the highest standards of the early 1970s.
Of all the improvements proposed, there is one in particular that I welcome. That is the introduction of the Wavell system for rapid automated handling of tactical intelligence. In this area of communications we were in great danger of falling seriously behind in our ability to fight a modern war.
In recent years the Soviet Union has increased the strength of its conventional forces both quantitatively and qualitatively. If the professional pride of the British Army, which is strong, and its high motivation, which Js great, are to be maintained, I have no doubt that the announcements made by the Government will help to improve morale and to deter a potential aggressor.
I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the Government's defence review. One arises from my membership of the NATO Assembly sub-committee on manpower. My questions concern the quality and quantity of reserves and international collaboration on defence equipment. On going abroad on NATO business I find that if any doubts are expressed about our Armed Forces, especially the Army, these are concentrated on the numbers in them in contrast with the vast numbers of people under arms in Western Europe.
The question, narrowed still further, is largely concerned with the strength of our reserves. All our European allies have some form of compulsory military service that supplies them with more men on active duty. The conscript system provides a larger number of men with a degree of military experience. It is, however, true to say that our voluntary system provides small numbers with a higher degree of competence. That is not always admitted by some people on the Continent. They argue that some of their conscripts, particularly those in Scandinavian countries, have a high degree of motivation and competence due to their high standards of education. I believe, nevertheless, that we can make up for numbers by a high degree of competence.
The conscript system has another result. It provides large numbers of potential reservists. Our dependence on the voluntary system will lack credibility if it is not backed by adequate reserves. I appreciate the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, who warned against the belief that by pushing more money into the reserves one gets the Army on the cheap. As my hon. Friend said, two reservists do not make up for one professional. I believe that that was the gist of his argument.
I know from my experience in the Ministry of Defence that many Regular Army people view with a jaundiced eye any expansion of the Territorial Army. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is stirring things up, but there is a problem. Our NATO friends will accept our small professional Army, but they expect this country to exert greater efforts to achieve an increased number of trained reservists.
How good are our reserves? The Regular Reserve is put at 136,000. The Defence Committee which took evidence on these matters in April this year, noted that 50,000 of the 136,000 were called up last year for one day. These


are people who have left the Army in the last nine years. The press release put out by the Army public relations department said that they
will report to military centres near their homes where they will be issued with uniforms and respirators to keep at home in readiness for mobilisation.
It sounds like 1938. The reservists are expected to report on at least one day every year for their equipment to be checked. But the Committee was told that the main function of the reservists would be
guarding, static duties, rather than operational deployments with combat equipment".
So much for the 136,000 reservists. In the eyes of many people in NATO, they are not contributing very much.
It is to the Territorial Army, therefore, that we must look. That is why I am glad that this force of about 60,000 will be increased. It has a vital job to do in protecting home installations as well as being a reinforcement for the BAOR. As Britain has the lightest military manpower burden, as measured by the ratio of military forces to total population, it is all the more important that we should make sure that the Territorial Army is maintained at a very high level of efficiency. Will the Minister tell us how the Government propose to recruit the extra men and women that they require?
What steps do the Government propose to take to improve the retention rate? It is no good having people coming in and then finding that they are bored because they are not getting the equipment to which they are entitled. The retention rate at the moment is quite good, but if we are to have a vast increase in numbers, obviously we want to keep the people that we have already, otherwise it is money ill-spent.
Will the Minister also assure the House that there will be a real improvement in the quality of equipment supplied to the Territorial Army? If the Territorials are to carry out the role that is given to them, they will demand the best possible equipment for their requirements. Assurances of that kind would be welcomed not only by people in the House, but by our NATO Allies.
Equipment is at the root of everything—for the Army, the Territorial Army and the defence forces as a whole. But all of us in NATO are suffering from the frightening increase in equipment costs. That is what has brought on the defence review, as we all know. Somehow the Russians—whose equipment, in comparison with ours, was relatively crude and unsophisticated some years ago—appear to have obtained more quality at rather lower cost. That is why we are all worried. That is why in the West we feel that we have to rearm. Quantitatively, the Russians are always ahead. Qualitatively, they are creeping up on us.
For years the NATO nations have tried, with limited success, to avoid what we know has on some occasions been a scandalous and wasteful duplication of research and development facilities and of the production of military equipment in the West. I remind the House of President Carter's concept of the family of weapons—"You build the light tank and we will build the heavy tank". Then there was the concept of multi-country collaboration, of which the Tornado was an example. But it was to cost more than Trident. That is a fantastic form of multi-nation collaboration. No wonder the people in the Ministry of Defence are a little jaundiced about any other efforts of a multi-national nature. We might have been wiser to buy

off the shelf from the United States, as the Dutch and the Belgians did. Yet we must keep trying to improve the position.
We must not leave everything to the Americans. It is right to insist that in Europe we retain technical design teams and manufacturing skills. In dealing with defence procurement strategy in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", the Government said on page 46:
There are clearly important reasons why we should normally buy British".
NATO hedges its bet a little by saying:
This does not mean that we should pay an unlimited premium for a Made in Britain label.
I am sure that that is right. The Government go on to say that
Collaborative projects can help us to share the financial burden and technical risks associated with development".
Those are fine sentiments, and I make no criticism whatever of my right hon. Friend when I say that those sentiments do not altogether square up. They involve the Government in having to make terrible decisions, sometimes seeming to conflict one with another. The Government are sometimes asked by hon. Members, on both sides of the House, to buy British when the British weapon system is not the most cost-effective available.
True competition rarely exists in this field, because each nation, in the final analysis, is preoccupied with buying its own products. Lobbying is intense and jobs are at stake. Unless we, in concert with our allies, tackle the equipment problem with renewed urgency, we shall find ourselves in the very near future having yet another defence review.
One way that would appear to offer a good chance of reconciling NATO's military requirements with national industrial needs—not to mention the needs of hard-pressed taxpayers—is to use what is described as the industrial approach. If an American company has the best piece of kit and it meets a NATO requirement, it should be obliged to team up with a European company, and vice versa.
The problem brooks no delay. Without first-class equipment, troops are a waste of money and effort. Equipment that is complicated and so expensive that we cannot afford the troops is equally a waste of money. If we do not overcome the problem of escalating costs of military technology, when the next defence review comes along it will have a really traumatic effect, not just on the dockyards, but on the defence establishments of all three Services.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: One aspect of the review that causes me considerable pleasure is that whether or not one agrees with the Navy being cut, for the first time for many years we are not making cuts across the three Services in order to economise. I am not suggesting that we should economise; indeed, I know that we are spending more money. But all too often in the past we have made the cuts in each Service, irrespective of the vital functions that each Service performs.
Having said that, it does not mean that I go all the way with the Government's policy on Trident. I mention Trident briefly because it is so much involved with whether we are able to maintain our full conventional forces in the future.
The reason that I do not necessarily go all the way with the Government's policy on Trident is that I am not


satisfied that, with the cuts in the Navy, we shall be able to ward off a Soviet threat that comes to us solely on the sea or under the sea.
If I were convinced that we could ward off such a threat, I would agree with the cuts 100 per cent. I put my fears to the Minister at Question Time. I may have put it so badly that he did not follow my point, but it could well be that, without the Soviet Union moving one soldier or sending up one aircraft, it could destroy the economy of the Western world simply by sinking ships.
What should we do in that situation? There would be no land war or air war, and we should be unable to see a war that took place under the sea. Do we send Trident in cold blood against the Soviet Union? That seems to be the argument that is being put forward. Does anyone here really believe that in cold blood, when there has been no movement of troops or of aircraft, we shall send the Trident to destroy parts of the Soviet Union?
If that decision has been taken, I can see the logic of it, but I do not want us to be stranded without having any way of making a response. The NATO forces in Europe would not serve any purpose by advancing towards the Soviet forces, because they would not be in any position to take them on. That is the main point that worries me about the expenditure on Trident.
It is no good the Government saying that expenditure on Trident will not reduce expenditure in other directions. It will eventually reduce expenditure on BAOR, which has a very important function.
People ask, "Why have any nuclear deterrents like this at all?" The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) spelt out what the Government will not spell out. One can visualise a situation in which America may not wish to help this country, although of course, that is difficult to visualise when there are American forces in Europe.

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Does he contemplate Britain alone being faced with that form of blockade by the sinking of ships? Is he forgetting the fact that we have allies who in the scenario that he described presumably would be involved?

Mr. Crawshaw: I have left the scenario of the sinking of ships. I am now on the scenario of an assault by Russian ground forces into Europe. America may say, "If we respond with our nuclear weapons, New York and the rest of our cities will go up." People may say, "Allies do not do that." But there are people in the House who will remember when France pleaded in 1940 for us to send fighter planes to give her troops a chance. We took a cold-blooded decision not to send them, because we should have required them in the event of the collapse of the forces fighting in France. So these things happen. I believe, therefore, that it is important to have an independent nuclear deterrent, irrespective of what the Americans have.
I turn now to three matters that are causing me some concern. The first concerns the positions of our troops in Europe. Do the Government or NATO feel that, given certain situations, we would be able to get our troops into the positions that they are supposed to occupy? Does anyone really believe that, given certain conditions, we should be able to get our reserve forces across to join those forces, searching for them in a move towards the front? I do not believe that it is on. Clearly, Germany presents a difficulty, because one would be laying half of Germany

open to Russian forces. The object of the exercise would be to stop Russian forces coming through in an emergency, and to be caught with both legs off the ground, moving forward to positions under air attack, in my view, is not on. I do not believe that people have really considered the position as it now exists.
Then there is the matter of battle training. I am worried about the cutting down of expenditure on ammunition, oil, petrol, and so on. I am convinced that it is better to have half the forces sufficiently trained, than to have the full number of forces going into battle unable to operate the equipment that they are supposed to be operating. People are not being trained to the required level.
The other matter is morale. Our forces are in a high state of morale, and I pay credit to that. However, we cannot keep chopping and changing. We have gone through the stage of getting rid of all the reserve forces, and then we have started to bring them back again. We are getting rid of part of the navy. How long can people be expected to believe that there is any future in serving in the Armed Forces when we are chopping and changing from one year to another? It is important to take that aspect into account.
In conclusion, I wish to say one thing, particularly to my colleagues and ex-colleagues on the Labour Benches who talk about unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is easy to say that if a nuclear war starts so many millions of people will be killed. People talk about the last war as though it was something that we fought with kid gloves not counting the 40 million people who were killed. Instead of looking into a crystal ball to see what may happen if a nuclear war were to start, would it not be better to look at the realities of what has happened since 1945?
Is it not a matter of pride that there is not a man in this country under the age of 53 who could ever have been called up to fight in a war in Europe? Two generations have gone free of war. Yet all we hear from many people in the House is speculation about what might happen. There is no doubt at all that, had we not had nuclear weapons from 1945 onwards, on at least two occasions there could have been another European war. The people who talk about getting rid of nuclear weapons are the very people who will bring on a war that no one wants. Those nuclear weapons are not there to win a war, because no one will win a nuclear war, hut to stop a nuclear war. We sit here now wondering whether Russian forces are going into Poland, but would we be thinking about that if the Poles had one nuclear submarine at sea that was capable of devastating 64 Russian cities. Of course we would not worry about whether the Russians were going into Poland, because we all know that they would not do so If there is to be any safety for Europe, we must match the best that the Eastern States can do.

Mr. Jim Spicer: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), not least because he and I shared service together in the Parachute Regiment many years ago. I wish that the words that he has spoken tonight could be echoed up and down the country on many occasions as coming from someone who puts his country above the party, whatever the party.
Most speakers in this debate have opened their remarks by paying tribute to the members of the Armed Services who have served or are serving in Northern Ireland. Those


of us who have encountered terrorist and similar activities in other parts of the world sometimes forget that in general terms our contact was, for example, three years in the Canal Zone, or four years in Cyprus. Now for more than a decade our troops have been in Northern Ireland. Their fortitude is quite remarkable.
My parent regiment, the Royal Fusiliers—now the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—my county regiment of the Devon and Dorsets and, above all, my regiment by adoption, the Parachute Regiment, have all served many tours in Northern Ireland and have performed gallantly there. However, if we pay tribute to their fortitude, we should also pay tribute to the fortitude of the families of the men who serve in Northern Ireland, because they are subject to great strain. I happily pay that tribute tonight.
The main burden of my speech is directed towards the Territorial Army. First, however, I want to raise one matter with the Minister of State. In his opening remarks, he talked—and rightly so—about the role of the Lynx in an airborne anti-tank role. He said that he had been in his present office for only a few weeks. He also said that he was really finding his feet and that there were areas that he still needed to explore. Perhaps I might pursue the point of the Lynx and the helicopter anti-tank role by asking him whether he has yet had an opportunity to discuss with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who knows all about this subject, what the German forces are doing in terms of helicopter-borne anti-tank groups.
In discussions that I have had with the Germans over the past four or five years I have found a tremendous drive and energy towards getting more battalions into the air in helicopters in a specialist role as anti-tank fighting teams. This matter is worth exploring. Perhaps over the next few weeks we may be given more information about any plans that there are in that regard. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to Ministers if I say that, if troops are to be put into such a role, they should be highly skilled and of exceptional quality. That obviously points towards a battalion of the Parachute Regiment, for starters.
I move on to the Territorial Army. One of the most refreshing and welcome aspects of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was his remarks about the TA, the increase in its strength and a return to the 42 days of training a year. Surely the 42 days are an absolute minimum. We shall be returning merely to the position that we enjoyed in 1979. If we are to produce a territorial force that is worthy of a front line support role, we should be thinking of going beyond 42 days.
I was rather disturbed when my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that by the end of the decade we shall have increased the strength of the TA by 16,000. That was not my hope and expectation. I know that what I am about to say will be echoed by all those who serve in the TA. If it were under orders tomorrow, it could within two years at the outside absorb that additional number of men with good effect. I hope that I shall be reassured that it is not the Government's intention to spend the next five years achieving the increase by dribbling in the men. If that is their intention, we shall be wasting a great opportunity.
Last Tuesday's debate was one of the remarkable debates, and I wish the radio had been able to broadcast it in full. Broad views were expressed from both sides of

the House. We missed a great opportunity by not broadcasting the debate over the radio. There were two outstanding speeches, one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the other from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Both dwelt strongly on the future role of our TA forces, the need for equipment and the fact that we have put ourselves very much out of balance in terms of the size of the Regular Army and that of our reserve forces in the TA. I agree with all that they said and all that everyone else has said in this debate about the need to increase the size of our TA forces and to improve their equipment.
How do we go about increasing the size of the TA and improving its efficiency? I return to the additional 16,000 men. The Minister of State has said that consideration is being given to how the 16,000 will be used and where they will come from. Is it to be a blanket operation across the entire spectrum of the TA, or is it to be a selective operation that will perhaps involve the formation of new units, as has already been said by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), involving a positive commitment to increasing efficiency and bringing forward the starting point at which the reserve forces could be of use in a front line reinforcement role?
I hope that the Government are taking the latter approach. We do not require a piecemeal operation. We must seek to increase the strength of the first-line reinforcement battalions and perhaps create new battalions. I hope that that is the line that the Government are taking.
In that context I draw the attention of the Minister to our three existing TA parachute battalions. Even those who would not declare an interest, as I happily do, in those battalions must admit that they form the most immediate and potent reserve that is available for Germany and for no less important tasks that might arise in future outside the NATO area.
Having mentioned the three battalions, I move on to develop two positive arguments about the reinforcement role and why we should concentrate much more on the creation of new units. My first argument relates to the need for a parachute TA brigade headquarters. One of the most disgraceful moves taken in respect of our reserve forces was the disbandment of headquarters 44 para brigade in 1978. It was vital that this brigade headquarters should have continued. It was the only formation within the TA that could have a formation role. If we are assembling a list of priorities, high on the list for the reinforcement of the TA should be the re-formation of that headquarters. Alongside that re-formation should be the bringing together of the arms and services that lost their parachuting identity as a result of the disbandment of the brigade in 1978.
Moving away from the TA, I put in a strong plea for the Government to recognise the need for a regular para brigade headquarters to be re-formed as well. I do not know the inner workings of the field forces, but sometimes they cause me to be worried. The sixth field force embodies all the regular parachute units. There are now no fewer than 52 or 53 units under the command of the sixth field force. It seems incredible that our spearhead force should be wrapped up within the sixth field force. There must be a strong case for a regular brigade headquarters to be re-established as well.
There are other ways in which we might usefully employ some of the additional 16,000 volunteers. I ask the


Secretary of State and Ministers to consider the raising of another Territorial Army parachute battalion. At present we have three such battalions. One is based in London, one in Glasgow and the third—I cannot think why this should be so—in Pudsey. There was a time—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) will remember this well—when we had other battalions throughout the country. There were battalions in Cardiff, Liverpool, Birmingham and Southampton. It would be the easiest thing in the world to re-form one of those parachute battalions in any of those major cities.
I find myself in a dilemma. The hon. Member for Wallsend spoke of the need to have a Royal Regiment of Fusiliers TA battalion, a second battalion, in his area. I was commissioned into the Royal Fusiliers and I must support the hon. Gentleman's view. However, failing a second Royal Regiment of Fusiliers battalion in his area, it might be a good idea if he pressed for a parachute battalion to be established in the area, or perhaps the two battalions together. That would make a great deal of sense.
If we are looking for quality and if we do not have a massive amount of money to spend, the obvious approach is to raise parachute battalions, which give the best possible value for money. I know that others will say immediately "All this will call for additional aircraft. From where are we to get the aircraft to provide parachute training?" It has been done before and it can be done again. At one stage, in the 1950s, the 16th TA Airborne Division was short of aircraft for parachuting. Every weekend United States aircraft, as the hon. Member for Toxteth knows, flew into the United Kingdom to enable a parachuting exercise to take place. They used to enjoy themselves before returning to Germany to their main bases. I am certain that there could be reciprocal arrangements made, not only with American aircraft, but with German aircraft.
I make no apology for laying so much stress on the parachute side. If we are to increase the size of our territorial forces, we must go for quality. I served as a regular officer in a Territorial Army formation in the mid-1950s. I remember well the incredible difference between the Territorial Army units which were of high quality and the others which were dragging along behind. The latter, units in name only, would have had little value and would have needed six or nine months before ever being considered worthy of use in the field in any shape or form. We must go for quality.
It is about four years since I had the great privilege of organising a one-day visit for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition. She spent the day with 44 Parachute Brigade and flew with it on a parachuting sortie. I remember how much she enjoyed that occasion and how, at the end of the day, with all the men of 44 Parachute Brigade gathered around, my right hon. Friend said that there was, and there always would be, a need for young people to come forward to serve their country.
My right hon. Friend went further than that and said that it must be wrong that at that time, when every weekend we were experiencing fighting on the football terraces, all the energy which was dissipated and wasted on such things could not be used to better effect, if those young men and women would answer a call to service by their country. If there ever was a time when they were needed, that time is now.
This is a time for a renewed call to service. I am certain that if that call were made, the response from our young people would be overwhelming today, as it always has been in the past.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I seem to be among a large number of territorials at present. Everyone is speaking about the Territorial Army, and I am pleased that that is so. Before I speak briefly about it I should like to congratulate my colleague in the Western European Union the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), on his speech.
I believe that we could recruit not just a second battalion in the North-East. We could double the TA if that was required. I remember the last camp which I went to before the war. That was when we were doubling the TA. It took a long time to bring about some form of coordination in the splitting of one batallion, the recruiting of many extra men and the making of two good batallions out of one. If we started that now, we could have a good force. I should support any increase.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) on his excellent speech. It reminded me of another of his speeches. That was a brave speech against his then party. He was the only person to speak out against the disbandment of the TA. His speech today was excellent, and it is one that we should all read and note.
I was glad to read in paragraph 15 of the White Paper about the increase in numbers of the TA and in training days, which I still do not believe is enough. The number should be pushed up to 50 because so many cannot attend the 42 days. If we pushed the number up to 50, everyone would probably be able to do 42 days.
The Crusader exercise carried out in conjunction with NATO was a tremendous success and showed what the TA can do. How long will it take for the numbers to be increased from 70,000 to 86,000? That must not be spread over a long period and dribbled in. We want extra units and those should be formed immediately.
I urge the Minister to see that the TA has enough petrol, ammunition and weapons to make its training won h while. The last time I went to see the TA unit in my constituency—the Royal Norfolks—I found that its exercise had just been cancelled. That was to be on the Stanford battle area, and it was cancelled because of the lack of petrol. The exercise had to take place in the drill hall. That was not a bad thing because it was pouring with rain. However, all the participants were sore that they had been cut down on petrol so that they could not do the training which they knew they had to do—practical field training, which meant so much to them.
People should realise that the TA is dead keen to do a worth while job. It is not so much the money, which is even better today in real terms than it was in my day. The TA wants above all the chance to be properly equipped and properly trained. I do not want a regular unit or a TA unit treated in the same way as my company was in front of the Maginot line in the period just two days before the blitz when all our weapons were taken away. The new weapons were going to be given to us two days after the blitz. As it was, we went to war armed only with rifles. That is no way to treat excellent men in a desperate situation, as it was then.
I turn to one other matter which is of interest to me in my constituency.
The vast majority of the Stanford battle area, which is the major training area for our troops, is in my constituency. Every unit destined to serve in Northern Ireland goes there for its basic final training in street warfare and in everything which the troops need to avoid casualties when they get to the Province. On part of that Stanford battle area training ground was to have been a new camp at Bodney. There is an old camp there with hutments which originate from the last war. It has been done up at various times, but it was to have been replaced. Announcements have been made that that camp was to have been rebuilt at a cost of several million pounds with tenders going out this autumn.
I read in my local paper, although I was not officially notified, that Eastern Command had said that the camp was not now to be proceeded with. I should like to know whether that means cancellation or postponement. If my hon. Friend cannot answer me today, no doubt he will write to me.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed forces and I had the pleasure of watching the Queen's Regiment and its massed bands beat the retreat on Horseguards a few weeks ago. He told me that he had never seen such discipline, even among the Brigade of Guards. It was a magnificent occasion. I join others who have expressed the wish to see more of our regimental bands. We are going through an extremely drab period. We would all like more colour, life and music in our lives, and I believe that the Army bands could provide it.

Mr. Bruce George: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No criticism of the Chair is intended, but unfortunately I caught your eye two days too late. However, I shall resist the temptation to make two speeches—the one that I would like to have made on Tuesday and the one that I intend to make tonight. If I did so, I would succumb to the same temptation that prevented many hon. Members from being called on Tuesday.
The Minister of State referred to his colleague the Under-Secretary as the longstop in the debate. In a way, this debate is the longstop of Tuesday's debate for those hon. Members who are not ex-Prime Ministers, Privy Councillors or spokesmen for major or minor parties. The conventions applied to that group mean that the ordinary Back Bencher interested in defence has no chance whatever of participating in one of the major defence debates. I personally believe that we should eliminate the automatic right of Privy Councillors to speak at any time they desire, to the detriment of the rest of us.
I should like to chastise the Minister of State for his patronising and sarcastic opening remarks which were absolutely uncalled for, particularly after his own speech on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman's speech, like those of Ministers in the past, created an air of unreality for his hearers. One hears about the endless number of weapons systems that are being developed, most of which were conceived before the Government came into office, and as a result, one thinks, "Well, perhaps things are not as bad as we are told."
However, in the cold light of reality one realises that, despite the soft words, British defence is facing a serious situation. One may temporarily be beguiled into not believing how poor our air defences are or how weak BAOR or the RAF in Germany is. For a few minutes of ministerial verbal magic, one may forget the fact that much of our Navy is to be mothballed or sunk. Ministerial speeches seek to convey an expression of confidence so that those who want to believe will believe. However, as most of us know, the reality is quite different.
On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said:
In the past 40 years one thing has remained constant among all the decisions that have been taken and all the views that have been expressed—namely, that when the Labour Party is in Opposition it expresses the view that we should become a non-nuclear power, yet, when in Government, it has the ability to maintain Britain as a nuclear power. That is the one consistent factor in history."—[Official Report, 7 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 295.]
But the right hon. Gentleman forgot to refer to the other element of constancy in British politics—the dichotomy within the Conservative Party. He forgot to tell about the rhetoric of Opposition and the belief conveyed to party members outside that when the Conservative Party gets into office it is blank cheque time for the Services. He forgot about the dichotomy between the rhetoric, the excitement and the John Wayne approach to defence and the reality of decision making, which is what we are now seeking.
Many Labour Members who are interested in defence have been talking about that for some time. I am certain that many Conservative Members realise that this is now crunch time, and that we cannot have an expensive Trident system and a conventional defence. I am sure they realise that the price for a Trident system is a weak conventional posture within the United Kingdom defence forces. That is inevitable. Those hon. Members who try to postpone the inevitable will find in the not too distant future, when there may well be another White Paper or defence review, that the inexorable decline in Britain's economy, with the obvious repercussions for defence, will be manifest to all.
Another element of constancy in British defence policy in the last 25 years has been the wrestling—which has mostly failed—to reconcile goals and aspirations with resources. They were coming into line. The Secretary of State pretends that by his far-sightedness and skill at management and administration, aims, aspirations and resources will now be congruent. They will not, because the inviolate element in the Government's defence budget—Trident—will distort the remainder of the budget. After a few years of reality, will be the misalignment of goals and resources will become even more obvious.
As one of the joint authors of the minority report to the Defence Committee's strategic nuclear weapons report, I wish to say how Trident will have the repercussions I fear on the remainder of the defence budget. The irony is that almost the day after our report was submitted to the Committee, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) was sacked as Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. In many ways, what we foretold came true much sooner than any of us expected.
I compliment the Ministry of Defence on its impeccable sense of timing by publishing its White Paper in time to snooker the report of the Select Committee. However, it cannot succeed permanently in doing so. But with cunning


and skill such as that, I wonder why we make such a mess of defence. The publication of the Ministry's White Paper hid even the majority report which contains a lot of sobering thoughts for Conservatives. Of course, the minority report is, I believe, a more significant and realistic analysis of the inevitable consequences of replacing Polaris with Trident.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: It also has the virtue of being well written and easy to understand.

Mr. George: As one of the joint authors, I accept that compliment.
The Minister of State displayed a sophisticated knowledge of acronyms. If a knowledge of acronyms equals an expertise in defence, that would make some Conservative Members experts. However, I suspect that a knowledge of defence goes much wider than reeling off a few acronyms to the delight of people who know even less than we do.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) spoke about the nature of decision making. He was right. Defence decision making is the monopoly of a handful of people. Parliament is an innocent bystander. When the Secretary of State said on Tuesday that we had had plenty of debates on Trident, he failed to point out that those debates ought to have preceded the decision so that the experience, knowledge and views of the House could have been of some assistance in the final decision making. The Government should not have made the decision and then pretended to consult the House. It was obvious that they were not prepared to share policy making with anyone outside the narrow circle who took the decision.
As I have said on a number of occasions, that approach reminds me of Frederick the Great, who said "My people and I have a wonderful arrangement. I let them say exactly what they like and they let me do exactly what I like." Talk is important, but a bridge should be built between talking in Parliament and the making of decisions.
The majority Conservative report, which in many ways condemns the Goverment's policies, said:
we must record that it has been a matter of regret to us that we have found the Ministry unwilling to discuss in any detail the opportunity costs of purchasing the Trident system.
The minority report was much stronger. It said:
The Committee feels, however, that the Ministry's refusal to furnish adequate information relating to the likely consequences for the remainder of the budget should it proceed with Trident is to be deeply regretted. This failure has inevitably cast into doubt the whole basis of the Ministry's case for the acquisition of Trident.
Only now are some of the inevitable consequences of Trident being made known. As time goes on and project after project is cancelled or limited and specifications are changed, hon. Members who voted for Trident will have to face their constituents who may work in defence industries and explain why the party of defence is helping to emasculate British defences.
I oppose the Polaris replacement on a variety of grounds. The terms of reference of our Committee excluded an investigation of the moral, ethical, religious or philosophical justifications for nuclear weapons and any examination of need for a missile system. The bulk of our investigation concerned opportunity costs.
I am not arguing on moral or philosophical grounds. I oppose the Polaris replacement because it will encourage further vertical proliferation. We possess now about 3 per cent. of NATO's warheads and we do not have the

capacity to attack Russian missile silos. With Trident, especially if we go to Trident II, we shall have a range which we do not require and a capacity to attack Russian silos that we do not desire. Our percentage of NATO missiles will increase from 3 per cent. to 7 per cent.—not merely a quantitative, but a qualitative change in our arsenal. That is undesirable.
The minority report opposes Trident largely on the ground of opportunity costs. Does anyone seriously argue that the cost will be only £5 billion? If it emerges as £5 billion the project will be almost unique in procurement history. It has been argued that Polaris was on target, hut the records of the Public Accounts Committee show few examples of major weapons programmes coming anywhere near the initial estimate, either because of malice on the part of the Ministry in deliberately underestimating the cost or a failure to estimate properly.
There will, to use the American jargon, be cost and time overruns. One of the more bizarre aspects of the proposed procurement is the uncertainty of the deterrent's final form. The minority report pointed out that there is no certainty whether we will have four or five missile submarines. I have come across quite a few members of the "We want eight and we won't wait" brigade.
There is no certainty about the power plant to be used on board the new submarines. The cost of refurbishing the shipyards is wildly unrealistic, and we certainly do not know where the SSNs will be built. The Ministry has masked that problem if it goes ahead with the Trident SSBN programme. We do not know the cost of updating the support facilities at Coulport, Faslane and Rosyth. We do not know the diameter of the submarines or the size of the missiles. Will they go for the C4 missile or will the Government be bounced into purchasing the larger D5 missile in order to retain commonality with the United States?
If we go along that route we shall be purchasing a submarine which is far larger than we want and a missile system which is in excess of what we need. The cost will be not £5 billion, but £7 billion or £8 billion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration at not being called in Tuesday's debate, but I hope that he will not speak about the Navy for too long. This is a debate about the Army.

Mr. George: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to outline the consequences for the Armed Forces of going ahead with Trident. It wall be much more expensive than the Government have admitted, but my main reason for opposing it is the opportunity costs. The expense of Trident will undoubtedly, despite the Government's assurances, divert resources away from our conventional weaponry.
It is important that we maintain a proper contribution within NATO. The right hon. Member for Sidcup on Tuesday, and many speakers in this debate, have extolled the virtues of the Territorial Army. I have eulogised the TA on a number of occasions, but we must bear in mind the fact that the political and military warning times that NATO may expect could be different from what we expected five years ago.
Surprise is consistent with Soviet military doctrine. As an American analyst wrote recently:
The classical indicators of attack will soon be permanently present, with or without crisis conditions. What many people are


now arguing is that NATO's deterrent posture in the early seventies was based on a substantial warning time and most analysts predicted that the Warsaw Pact would need to mobilise before a large attack and we could respond accordingly.
It is clear that if, God forbid, the Soviet Union wishes to attack—I am not saying that this will happen—but its capability in weaponry and the speed that the Russians have shown in Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia will mean that the warning time on which we have hitherto worked could be telescoped considerably.
My worry is that if we alter the balance between our forces in Germany and our reserves and reinforcements a swift attack might result in our reserves and reinforcements waiting for Townsend Thoresen ferries in Folkestone. Their role will be superflous because the battle will have been fought and lost. Therefore, even though I support the idea of the TA, we must have a proper balance between our forces in the front line and our forces in reserve.
The British Army of the Rhine has the lowest density of fire power of all the European allies. The Government say that BAOR has not been weakened, but they are starting from the wrong position. We start from the position of a weak BAOR and RAF Germany, and nothing in the White Paper convinces me that our forces in Germany have been anything but weakened.
We occupy the north German plain, flat land which is conducive to tank attack. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) said, our tank inventory is grossly inadequate. We shall have a long wait for the replacement of the Chieftain tank and when it comes we shall have only half the numbers that are required. I am delighted that Chieftain tank crews will have the power to see at night, but if the armour is so weak that they can be easily knocked out, that will hardly be a major step forward.
In quality terms, we need in BAOR the present force and more quality equipment. It needs more modern equipment, a greater density of fire power, a new main battle tank and an improved air support system. It also needs a greater tactical flexibility.
I do not support the view of the American who said 70 years ago "If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly". That appears to be the Government's attitude to defence. They seem to say that if we need a defence we can have a defence of sorts. The ultimate criterion for effective defence is not what might look good in a White Paper or in the Inernational Institute for Strategic Studies' annual report, but the effectiveness on the day, or days—should that catastrophe ever befall us.
I fear a weakening of BAOR at this time and a weakening of the Royal Air Force—I shall not discuss that, for, if I do, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will intervene again—in Germany. Unless adequate resources are put in, our defences will suffer. We have heard a great deal about privatisation. We have bought ageing DC 10s from East African Airlines. We shall have to commandeer British Airways, British Caledonian and European Ferries to get our troops to Germany or Norway. Perhaps the Government will consider further privatisation to see whether cruise missiles could be fired from Securicor vehicles. Factories might contemplate purchasing a tank,

or schools, enough ammunition to sustain a week of conflict. That is the way that the Government seem to be drifting.
In conclusion, I am sad that the Army is not being strengthened. I believe, as many if not all believe, that our important contribution to NATO should be our conventional contribution. It is important that our role in NATO should remain an irreducible commitment. I believe in alliances withering away, but withering equally swiftly or equally slowly. As others have said, any trend towards unilateralism or neutralism could lead to destabilisation. I hope that unilateralists and pacifists do not assume that anyone who believes in defence is automatically a hawk or a warmonger. There is no monopoly of conscience in any one group on party. We are merely proceeding to our goal of disarmament in a different way.
The Government, unfortunately, are damaging NATO by concentrating on nuclear weapons. We shall be back in the Sandys era of concentration on nuclear weapons to the detriment of conventional forces. I believe that such a Gaullist attitude is inimical to collective security. I believe that our allies will certainly recognise that. I hope that the realities of the situation will soon prevail and that we shall make the contribution to NATO that we are best fitted to make—which is, a conventional contribution.

Mr. Keith Best: The House knows of the interest of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) not only in general matters military but especially in the Territorial Army. Indeed, he has accompanied me on at least one visit to the forces. I therefore take particular note of what he said about the reserves and shall turn to that in a moment.
It is a feature of every Army debate that hon. Members on both sides mention the Territorial Army more than any other aspect of the Army. I believe that that shows the importance with which the Territorial Army is regarded throughout the House. I believe, too, that it is an accurate reflection of the attitude of the public at large.
I wish to deal first with the BAOR commitment and the force levels there. Paragraph 17 of "The Way Forward" contains the proposal, which is now common knowledge, to reorganise the main regular structure of First British Corps from the present four armoured divisions, each of two brigades, to three armoured divisions, each of three brigades. At first sight that might seem to be a reduction in forces, but one must look carefully at the Brussels treaty.
Article 1 of the 1954 protocol to the 1948 treaty that the United Kingdom commitment of forces should not exceed in total strength
four divisions and the Second Tactical Air Force".
Article 6, however, contains a further commitment to maintain the level of forces which obtained at that time, which is stated to be
four divisions and the Second Tactical Air Force, or"—
and this is the important part—
such other forces as the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, regards as having equivalent fighting capacity.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in consultation and has assured SACEUR that the reorganisation, with the removal of one divisional headquarters, will not in any way reduce the overall level of commitment and thus breach the treaty obligation.
I wish, however, to concentrate on the last part of article 6, which states:
If the maintenance of the United Kingdom forces on the mainland of Europe throws at any time too great a strain on the external finances of the United Kingdom, she will through Her Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, invite the North Atlantic Council to review the financial conditions on which the United Kingdom formations are maintained.
It is therefore possible that with those consultations we could reduce the level of forces in the BAOR. I do not say that we should. I do not think that that would be advisable or in the best interests of the maintenance of peace in the Western world.
My right hon. Friend's statement is clearly designed to redeploy and to save money, because we all know the constraint that has been placed on the defence commitment—the escalating cost of equipment and personnel, a cost that will outstrip the 3 per cent. per annum to which we are committed up to 1986. that means, almost inevitably, that what we are seeing this year will not be an isolated event. There will be other times when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to come back to the House and say that the escalation of equipment and personnel costs is continuing unabated against the 3 per cent. real increase in defence expenditure allowed for, and therefore further savings will have to be made. How shall we best be able to do that while maintaining our commitment to the British Army of the Rhine?
There is nothing in the Brussels treaty and its protocol that lays down the constitution of the forces there. There is nothing that says that a certain level of forces must be Regular Forces or that so many must be reserves. It would be within the realms of contemplation, although I suspect impractical, to have all four divisions as Territorial divisions, perhaps with a recycling process. The administrative burdens would be intolerable, but that is possible under the terms of the treaty.
There is to be an increase of 16,000 in the Territorial Army. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us about the time scale over which it is expected that extra recruitment will take place. The cost-effectiveness of the TA is not in doubt. We have heard that from many hon. Members, and we shall hear it again. Because it is a cost-effective way of providing services, it is inevitable that any Government will seek to find additional ways in which to bring in more Territorial Army men, though perhaps not as a substitute for Regular Forces. However, that may happen in the future.
That leads me to the aspects of the Territorial Army that I think are most important. The first is that of training. Even if we do not continue to escalate the commitments of the Territorial Army to BAOR, there is a need for greater training for the TA in the BAOR. I welcome the increase in man training days. My hon. Friend will know that there was consideable pressure from some hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, for that increase when there was a temporary reduction. For independent units, hitherto there were 44 man training days, and even though the number of days has now been increased to 42, it is not up to its previous level. It is important that more Territorial units should spend more time in training in the theatre in which they would be expected to act in time of war.
Another aspect is that of equipment. In paragraph 18 of "The Way Forward" there is a sentence that will send

a cold shiver down the spine of anyone who is interested in defence and in ensuring that our defence forces are adequately maintained logistically. It reads:
The scale or timing of some of the new equipment projects will need to be modified, partly to restrain total cost but also to provide room, in accordance with paragraph 5 above, for further enhancement of war stocks and ammunition to improve the combat endurance of 1(BR) Corps;
We welcome that further enhancement of war stocks and ammunition, but should it be provided at the expense of re-equipment, not only of the Regular Army but of the Territorial Army, on which I am concentrating'? Does it mean that there will be some delay for the Regular Army, but an even bigger delay—perhaps interminable—for the Territorial Army? That worries us all, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address himself to the matter.
Only 17 per cent. of the Territorial Army's total cost goes on equipment, compared with 41 per cent. for equipment in the whole defence budget. Therefore, no one can pretend that the Territorial Army is being profligate in its spending on equipment.
It was a privilege to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who is held in great esteem on both sides of the House, not only because of his former incarnation as Deputy Speaker, but because of his distinguished record in the Services and because of the authority with which he speaks on defence matters. The hon. Gentleman mentioned mobilisation, which undoubtedly will be greatly facilitated by the new individual reinforcement plan. We all welcome it, because the way in which the reserves have been expected to report to centres often far from their home base has been somewhat bizarre.
Mobilisation must be carried out in a way that is good for morale. The men must know that they will be effective in time of war. Moreover, it must be effective as a deterrent to any potential aggressor. Therefore, it must be practised regularly to show the potential aggressor that it works and to enhance the morale of those taking part That is why I hope that Exercise Crusader will not be an isolated event, and that there will be further mobilisation practices to make sure that we keep in trim.
How often do we think about what would happen if there were a war and suddenly the breadwinners in many families went off to join the Army, not knowing how long they would be away? How often do we tell the wives and families of Territorial soldiers about what might become reality? We must examine the matter, because I suspect that the wife and family of the average Territorial soldier do not think about that.
There are lessons about mobilisation to be learnt from Exercise Crusader. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) mentioned some. I was a participant in the exercise, as well as an observer. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the concept of long convoys will not work in time of war. Another lesson of the exercise concerned the fitness of the Territorial Army. My hon. Friend was worried about the training of the reserves—not the Territorial Army, but those who had been in the Regular Army and now constitute the reserve and who would go to BAOR as top-ups, right down to the basic unit section level, in time of war.
I spoke to a number of unit commanders who could not recall the time when they had ever seen those reservists


who were to come to them in time of war. There needs to be more training of the reserves, not simply of the Territorial Army.

Dr. Glyn: I raised this point earlier. Now that retirement sometimes occurs at the age of 50 or 55, it would not hurt people to do at least a month's training per year. In that way they would be better educated and fitter to do the job when they were called upon to go abroad.

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend has a point in so far as there is scope for increasing training for the Territorial Army and the reserves. Whether that is done in a quantitative or a qualitative way is a matter for debate. Training certainly needs to be enhanced in some way, and it may well be that the training given should be of longer duration. Civilians, however, cannot be taken away from their places of work for too long.
I should like to look a little beyond the BAOR and the Territorial Army to something that has been mentioned in the "The Way Forward". I refer to a world-wide, or broader, commitment. Paragraph 32 says that events
make it increasingly necessary for NATO members to look to Western security concerns over a wider field than before, and not to assume that these concerns can be limited by the boundaries of the Treaty area.
Further on there is the following tantalising and most interesting sentence:
Measures to increase the airlift capability of our Hercules force by fuselage-lengthening are already far advanced, and we have decided to incease its flexibility by fitting station-keeping radar equipment which will enable the aircraft to carry out the co-ordinated drop of a parachute assault force, even in poor weather".
Shortly before that it states:
We will implement plans for a modest extra stockpile of basic Army equipment".
That equipment is for use outside the normal area. What does that mean? Does it mean—as the sentence implies—that we are returning to a world-wide parachute role? If so, we cannot do that with only two parachute battalions. That is inadequate. Does that mean that the forces' parachute capabilities will be enhanced? Is that something that could be undertaken by the Territorial Army?
I was interested to note the answer to a parliamentary question on 10 July 1980. My hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), said:
The restoration of a limited assault parachute capability is one of number of possible enhancements, attainable at modest cost, to the ability of existing United Kingdom forces to operate world-wide which is currently under consideration."—[Official Report, 10 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 299.]
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House on whether that consideration has borne fruit. We must have flexibility. Indeed, many hon. Members have mentioned that. We must be flexible not only by being able to take troops away from their BAOR commitments for use elsewhere, but by getting them abroad. Pehaps that means that more Territorial Army equipment must be pre-positioned in Germany, so that our sole difficulty is moving personnel. After all, there may be only a short period of tension in which to do that. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of an uncommitted reserve, rather than one committed to specific tasks.
I am one of those who believe that any future conflict will not take place in Europe. There are many flashpoints

in the world particularly in the Middle East and Iran. We have trading links with those areas, and therefore they are of critical importance to us. A flashpoint somewhere else in the world is hardly likely to lead to a conflagaration that involves the United Kingdom. We do not have the same trading links with Afghanistan as we have with Iran. However, what would happen if we discovered that the Soviet Unions' troops had moved into Iran from the Afghan borders? What would happen if they threatened our imports from Iran? Would we look upon that with the same degree of equanimity as we have been forced to look upon the invasion of Afghanistan? I suspect not.
Regrettably, after several thousand years, the basic human desire for polemics has not suddenly changed in 1981. Therefore, war is a real prospect. Are we to look to a short war, or to one of long duration? We go into the realms of hypothesis, but suffice it to say that if one looks through the history books at previous wars, certainly those within living memory, one sees that they have all been wars which people thought would be of short duration, but which went on for much longer. That is why we should not throw all our eggs into the nuclear deterrent basket. We should ensure that we have adequate conventional forces.
I know that now is not the time to articulate views on the nuclear deterrent, but it follows from the argument. There is a need to keep the nuclear deterrent in the current capability. That must mean enhancement as the existing nuclear deterrent wears out. However, those who say that we should not have a nuclear deterrent cannot prove that it has not been the nuclear deterrent that has been responsible for peace in Europe in the past 30 to 40 years. If they say that we should not have a nuclear deterrent, and if they cannot prove that that is not means whereby we have secured peace in this troubled part of the world in the past 35 or 40 years, it is incumbent upon them to produce something better to put in its place.
I respect the motives of those who, out of philanthropy, feel that there should be unilateral disarmament, but is it realistic? How many people know that a few years ago Canada took the path of unilateral nuclear disarmament? The basis of the unilateralist argument is that if one country does it others will follow. What other nations followed suit? Were there headlines the next day—"Soviet Union recognises philanthropic stance of Canada" and followed suit by dispossessing itself of nuclear weapons? Of course not. We know only too well that if this country were unilaterally to disarm no other country would follow—certainly not the Soviet Union, the potential aggressor.
What worries me about nuclear arms is proliferation, especially among the smaller countries that now have the potential to obtain nuclear weapons. One thinks immediately of Libya. If those smaller countries gain access to a nuclear armoury, what good then will the SALT talks be between the two Super Powers if a nuclear holocaust can be precipitated by a smaller nation? Inevitably, and logically, that must lead us to the only conclusion that is viable—that is, the need for multilateral disarmament before it is too late. It will be too late once too many of the small countries, which lack our political stability or that of the USSR, have the potential to wage nuclear war.
It is necessary that our nation knows that the House stands for multilateral disarmament. There should be greater articulation of what is happening in Geneva. We all know that it is a slow and painstaking process and that


sometimes little result is seen for long days and hours of talks. However, the ground is being won in Geneva for multilateral disarmament in a number of spheres. It is time that more was said about that. Unless we tell the people of this nation what is being done to disarm multilaterally and secure the future peace of the world, we cannot blame them for joining the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and for thinking that we in the House are more concerned with rearmament than with disarmament. That is why it is essential to keep public confidence, and by doing so we shall also retain the respect of any potential aggressor.
It is a delicate balance. We must get it right. If we fail to do so, it is my generation that will pay the penalty.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) and others. The effect of the shortage of money on the Territorial Army, on bands and on the supply of petrol was mentioned. The hon. Gentleman paid a tremendous tribute to the TA, which I endorse. Apart from contributing to our defence, the TA makes a social contribution through those who serve in it. I had the privilege of attending a small TA function in my constituency last week. Members of the TA are bucked up by the tremendous job that they do. However, the TA is worried about where the money will come from to enable it to do the job that it would like to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) soliloquised about our great bands. We all endorse his remarks, but the future of these bands may be at stake through lack of funds. I hesitate to talk about the Royal Marines band, as I believe that the Royal Marines come under the Navy Vote. It is often said that the Marines are half soldiers and half sailors, but as an ex-Royal Marine I refute that; they are both, so it is right for me to point out that they, too, have suffered through the shortage of money.
In considering what is happening in the Armed Forces, we come down to the Government's basic philosophy. The difficulty is whether we can afford Trident, a consideration that overshadows all our debates on the Armed Forces. I do not believe in unilateral disarmament. I believe that we should be part of an Alliance which, unfortunately, because the nuclear deterrent exists is based on that deterrent.
I am old enough to remember the last war. I vividly remember in the last 12 months of my service heading towards the Far East to take part in the Japanese war. That war ended before I arrived. The reason arose because of a terrible decision that had to be made by our Prime Minister and politicians and the leader of the American nation. It was decided to drop a horrible weapon, and two cities experienced the terror of the effects of an atomic weapon. It stopped the war, however, at a time when thousands were being butchered in the jungles of Burma and elsewhere.
As has been said several times, we have had the longest period of peace between major nations, and I believe that that is because of the existence of the nuclear deterrent. It may be called a balance of terror. It may be argued that the weapon is wrong. However, the inescapable fact is that the only countries going through the terrors of war are those that do not have it. They are fighting with conventional forces, and people are being butchered. That is why it is wrong to chase the illusion of an independnt

nuclear deterrent such as Trident to the detriment of conventional forces. We must be part of a system that can provide those forces.
We hope that all our missile systems and weapons and our entire Armed Forces will eventually become obsolete. At least if obsolescence is created by people serving in the Armed Forces a social good results. I do not believe that a kid is harmed by spending time in the forces. It did me no harm, and I know of no other person who feels that it harmed him.
I do not say that we should have National Service, or anything like it. The disciplines of community life away from the apron strings of parents do no harm.
The Government are committed to the expensive Trident missile. That is detrimental to the country and to training that could take place in the Armed Forces.
During the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) I was reminded of something said to me at school. My hon. Friend said that the Government were committing themselves to £5 billion for the missile. I wonder whether the House or the nation understands what £5 billion is. It is worth using a calculation explained to me by a teacher when I was at school. If I had been born at the same time as Jesus Christ, and I had put £5,000 a day into the bank, and every year was a leap year, I would still not have enough money to pay for this toy. That is the size of the problem. That is what we are spending on something that we hope will become obsolete.
We are being asked by the Government and the planners in the Armed Forces to put all our eggs into one basket. At the same time we are sacrificing a major traditional role of the Army. Navy and Air Force. I find it difficult to accept the social effect that that will have on the youngsters who serve in our Forces.
If it is not too late—and I think that it probably is—for the Government to think again, let them think in terms of getting together with our NATO Allies and asking whether it is really that important to have this toy. I say "toy" but we are talking about something which is more important than a toy. Do we have to have it to prove that we are big lads? We are talking of a £5 billion or £6 billion nuclear weapon. Cannot we be part of the NATO Alliance, part of a system which pays considerably less? I believe that we could play a more important part in the defence of Britain, and contribute to the social uplift of many youngsters, if some of the money were diverted from that project to looking after traditional forces.
I am tempted to talk about the effect that it has on employment in the many military establishments throughout the country. They are all involved. I hope that in the clear light of day the Government will think again before committing themselves to putting all their eggs in that one basket. I hope that they will do something about creating a more effective system which has both a defence and social posture.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief because I know that time is short. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) most interesting but I wish to look ahead to the development of our land forces for the defence of the mainland of this nation. I do so against the background of a White Paper that I applaud. It is a beautifully clear document that highlights the problems that we have to


face. It goes, within its own context, a good way towards meeting those problems. I believe, however, that we should be considering the development of our land forces along the lines that I intend briefly to sketch.
What are we facing if we get to the period of a countdown towards nuclear war? We rely on our deterrent strategy to cause the Soviet Union to back off. During that period of countdown, the stress on every man, woman and child in these islands will be absolutely tremendous. One of the questions that has to be answered—it is carefully posed in the White Paper—is whether we can physically defend ourselves against a direct attack by the Soviet Union.
The White Paper, I think for the first time, recognises, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his speech on Tuesday, spelt out, the fact that we have to be able to defend ourselves against the special forces of the Soviet Union. Those who have read Sir Neil Cameron's speech to the Royal Society of Arts on 6 April last year will be aware that he has pointed out that the Soviet Union has the capacity to airlift 50,000 highly trained front line troops from central Russia to the Gulf—the same distance separating central Russia from this country. The Soviet Union could land those troops in this country provided it could maintain air superiority. At the same time, the troops could be backed by no fewer than eight airborne divisions.
When that potential, together with the nuclear threat, is compared with our lack of civil defence and the very limited degree to which our population is involved in the defence of our island, we have a problem that I know my right hon. Friend recognises. I do not expect him to reach a solution overnight. I regard the White Paper as a step towards that solution. I take up another point made by Sir Neil in his brilliant address. We have a very under-used resource—our people. Our system, at the moment, does not involve our people. Each family does not know what would be its role. All would like to have an opportunity to play some role, not only in civil defence in protecting ourselves against possible attack by nuclear or conventional weapons, but also in defence on the ground.
My thesis for the medium term is that we should look for a method of training a far wider section of our population. This would not be a surprising proposal in European terms. It is not always recognised that we are the only country in Western Europe, with the exception of Eire and Luxembourg, that does not train all its young men between 18 and 20 in some defence role.
I realise that difficult issues are raised. How is it to be done? Should there be an element of compulsion? Could it be included as an option in an imaginative scheme of community service? How does one set about training? If there were more time, I would have developed my thoughts in greater detail.
I want to suggest in sketch form that we should be thinking along the following lines. I do not wish to damage our highly trained professional Army. I fully recognise its desire not to have its important role watered down by having to train either the Territorial Army or a broader home defence or civil defence force. I believe that we could institute this kind of training with a special cadre designed to do it, and that it could be done on a comparatively localised basis.
I do not wish, either, to damage the comparatively high state of readiness that the Territorial Army can achieve. I am not anxious to damage the professional forces or the Territorial Army. But we have 420 TA centres all over the country many of them significantly under-used. There are a large number of redundant schools. The cadre who could perform this task could be built up very largely from those who are leaving the Armed Forces.
I was astonished to discover from this years's White Paper that the number of professionals leaving our Armed Forces every year is between 40,000 and 50,000. That is a significant number of people. While they would not all want to perform this task, I suspect that in the present climate, with many of them looking for jobs, they would be happy and possibly keen to use their skill and experience in forming the nucleus—and possibly more than the nucleus—of such a cadre.
The time is opportune—I do not mean this year or necessarilly next year—for thinking along these lines. I understand that this year there will be 480,00 young men reaching the age of 18. There is not an hon. Member in this House who is not conscious that it is not easy now for those young men to obtain jobs. Let no one think that I am suggesting that this is a home for the jobless. If any scheme of this sort were to be brought into being, it would have to be directed nation-wide, on a one-nation basis. Everyone would have to be involved.
With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and to one's experience, I am just old enough to have been caught up in the last type of service for our nation, and I do not believe that people would resent a comparatively short period of carefully directed training. There would be enormous benefits in tackling the two problems that I have not managed to develop sufficiently. I refer to the countdown period, when people do not know what they will have to do, when there will be a terrible worry that people will be scrambling for the hills, and when they will also not have been trained or experienced in civil defence aspects.
Such a scheme would also, I believe, have its effect on those in the Kremlin who would have to consider the risks of making a pre-emptive strike on this island. Most hon. Members and most members of the public do not realise that strategically one of the most sensible options, if the Kremlin were minded to make such a move—I regard it as a remote possibility, I hasten to say—would be for the Soviet Union to go straight for the United Kingdom, the aircraft carrier which reinforces Europe.
This argument is not only to be found in the White Paper but has been carefully explained by Sir Neil Cameron, so that I am not out on a limb in putting it. It would make as much sense for the Soviet Union to seek to pre-empt and capture this island as to do what it is traditionally assumed that it would do—to come across the German border, through the north German plain, while we all scrambled back to some kind of Dunkirk and re-formed in this country.
It is not realised how limited our armed forces on the mainland are. They consist of a few regional headquarters, which were outlined on page 33 of the last White Paper. They consist, too, of our Territorial Army. I welcome the fact that the TA is to be enlarged. A substantial proportion of it, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), would be making their way towards the ferries at the time when this attack might occur, and therefore would not be available to defend the island as a


whole. They consist also of something called the Eighth Field Force, the precise size and strength of which I have not yet been able to ascertain, but about which I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to enlighten us. That is a most inadequate amount of land forces to protect the mainland of this island.
I am conscious that I have opened up a wide-ranging debate at this late stage in the argument, but it is time that the matter was opened up and carefully thought through. The principle of getting our people more involved and the notion of the citizen army, involving the whole nation, which was so well put at the end of the distinguished speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on Tuesday, should be carefully explored, and the resource of our young men and women, however we seek to use it, should not be ignored.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to make four brief points in about 10 minutes, at the most. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said that the Army did no harm to anyone. I do hope that that is true, although I hardly think that it is an apt simile.
As the Minister knows, I have a constituent, Andrew Day, who said that he had been harmed in the Army. I do not intend to go into the details now, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me how long the investigation into the case will take. I know that he is keen to ensure that there is a full and thorough investigation and that, if the allegations are found to be accurate, action will be taken to ensure that such brutality does not occur again. I have received a number of letters confirming the views that were expressed—I put it no stronger than that—and I have received no contrary points of view. It is a matter of concern, and I am sure that the Minister too is concerned about the matter.
Secondly, I know that the Army frequently has a difficult role to play. I have been to Northern Ireland and I know that its role there is controversial. It is an issue that would merit a separate debate. I do not want to say to what degree the Army should be withdrawn to the barracks, but I realise that the Army has to face conditions of strain and great difficulty. The Army has within its armoury tactical nuclear weapons. The last Labour Government bought Lance tactical nuclear weapons for them. That is an enormous responsibility. I should like that responsibility to be diminished and ended, because I am a unilateral nuclear disarmer and have been ever since the movement started in the 1950s.
In view of the difficult role that the Army has and beause it is a large organisation, I believe that there is a place for trade union organisation within it. That is not so outlandish an idea. It happens and operates perfectly well in Holland, for example, and there they are discussing the role of nuclear weapons. After all, why not? They are the people who, if the deterrent theory fails, will be ordered to carry out the nuclear strikes. Those people should be involved in the debate. They are members of our community. They are people of our nation and they have the right to enter into the discussion. They are not automatons. They are not deprived of the right of thought and feeling on this issue, as the union role in Holland has demonstrated.
Thirdly, I turn to the Royal ordnance factories. I recently attended a meeting of the Yorkshire and Humberside region of the Trades Union Congress. Great

concern was expressed about the privatisation of the Royal ordnance factories. As I said in an intervention to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), the Government have a funny way of viewing these issues. I assume that they are contemplating selling off the Royal ordnance factories because there will be profits for their friends. That must be the only reason. They would not sell off any other facilities. They do not try to sell off the rural branch lines of British Rail. There must be a potential for profitable turnover at the Royal ordnance factories.
Why not go the whole hog in this absurdity? Why not sell off the Army to Securicor, the Navy to European Ferries, and the RAF to Laker? We do not do that. We do not contemplate it. It is an absurd idea. We recognise that the resources need to be under public control and accountability.
Why not apply that principle to the means of production associated with the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and keep them publicly accountable? Why not use some of the ideas that have been spreading that involve using some of the capacity of the Royal ordnance factories for alternative products and using some of the facilities and the abilities within them? There is no reason why the taxpayer should carry the burden all the time. If there are facilities that could show a return, why not ensure that the taxpayer obtains that return?
At the meeting of the Yorkshire and Humberside region of the TUC strong opposition was expressed to any notion of privatisation. It is a concept that does not provide security of tenure for jobs. That has been demonstrated over the past two years. Privatisation leads to asset stripping and to decisions being made by private individuals without any accountability. During Tuesday's debate on the Navy we heard some interesting evidence concerning publicly owned parts of the Navy's manufacturing and retailing facilities. We cannot have a debate about a private closure because the Government do not have legislative responsibility.
Fourthly, I ask why the Ministry of Defence seems to be so reluctant to disclose the costs of the public relations exercise which it is continually carrying out. I assume that it is being continued at considerable public expense. When I last asked a question about the exercise I was told that over 600 "freebies" are organised each year—over 12 a week—to the various military establishments for journalists to enable them to maintain the campaign. I understand that there are occasions when it is necessary to give information but that level of operation seems much too high. In part it is maintained to sustain an image.
There is a rising groundswell of opinion against the deployment and use of tactical theatre and strategic nuclear weapons. There is no doubt about that. The Secretary of State says that he will step up the public relations campaign. However, he cannot command the enthusiasm, integrity and determination of those who support either the European Nuclear Disarmament Campaign or the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
It is ironic that almost every participant in the debate has mentioned the massive cost of Trident. Hon. Members have said, "We have had peace for 30 years and the deterrent theory works. We have Polaris." If that is so, why replace Polaris with something which is immensely more powerful? If it works already, why up the ante and raise the nuclear power?

Mr. Jim Spicer: Polaris is outdated.

Mr. Cryer: It is not a question of Polaris being outdated. Trident is immensely more poweful and each Polaris submarine carries more firepower than was used in the whole of the 1939–45 war with the explosives used by both sides. It is ironic that when 20,000 young people are being denied places in higher education, which we debated yesterday and when the full savagery of those cuts will be felt in 1983–84, the Government will embark on the £6 billion to £7 billion expendiiture on Trident. That is not acceptable to the nation.
I cannot go on with the extensive arguments against the deployment of nuclear weapons. They are sound and they are growing. More people are committed to that point of view. The deployment of nuclear weapons is not compatible with the defence of our country. Those committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament believe that it is a sound source of defence—indeed, the only defence for our country.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I have listened with interest to what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, particularly to their kind remarks about the Territorial Army. I have also listened to what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said about the Armed Forces and his suggestion about the role of the trade unions in such an organisation, refering to what has been done in Holland.
I am afraid that the hon. Member has got the position in this country entirely wrong. If man-management in industry were as good as it is in the Services, there would be little or no need for trade unions. I can think of nothing worse or more likely to alienate the commendable structure of the Armed Forces than to try to introduce some form of trade unionism. I was grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), who suggested that we should devote more of our energy to supporting other countries through our Armed Forces. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give more thought to that. There are countries, such as Nepal which provides us with no less than 10 per cent. of our infantry, which might find it a great advantage to have support from the Royal Engineers in helping with the provision of water supplies and in other matters. We could contribute a great deal of overseas aid in that way.
The House will not be surprised that I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's recent statement, particularly about increasing the Territorial Army by 16,000, because I have had the pleasure of serving nearly 30 happy years in the TA.
When looking at the proportion of the gross national product which we contribute towards defence, it is important that we should understand that we have an all-regular full-time force and that the people who contribute less in other parts of Europe and elsewhere in the world still have some form of conscription, and are therefore getting their defence on the cheap. We have decided not to do it that way, and therefore, inevitably, defence costs us more.
There are of course disadvantages in not having National Service. It means that a much smaller proportion of young people have the experience of military life and, therefore, a much smaller reservoir is available to be called upon in times of emergency. If some future combat took

either a nuclear or conventional form, inevitably far fewer people would have a clear idea of how best to go about defending themselves and the country as a whole. The increase in the size of the Territorial Army is, therefore, important. I wholeheartedly welcome the increase to 86,000 by 1990 from the present figure of 70,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) said that he had served in the Regular Army for 10 years. He will probably appreciate that I would have to serve in the Territorial Army for 100 years to cost the nation the same amount. The Territorial Army cost is only 10 per cent. that of the Regular Army, and I consider that to be very good value indeed.

Mr. Donald Thompson: So do we.

Mr. Thorne: We must pay particular attention to the question of man training days and equipment for the Territorial Army. If we are to rely much more upon it—I am pleased that we shall—we must pay special care to those spheres. It is no good taking on the personnel and expecting it to do the job that we want of it unless we provide the facilities.
Undoubtedly, the Territorial Army must have modern equipment. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) said that some parts of the Territorial Army are still using 1939 webbing. That is true. Until the Territorial Army is brought up to date with more modern equipment, we cannot expect it to take on a greater role.
In a recent oral answer, my hon. Friend gave me figures about man training days. I believe that between 1978 and 1979 there was an increase from 2 million to 2½ million. My hon. Friend was unable to project further, but we both know that the figure of 44 man training days per person went down to 38 and that it will go up to 42 under the new proposals. However, I am still concerned that that will not be enough, because over the last few years Territorial Army recruitment has been considerable.
In the past, it was possible to rely upon using the full establishment figure in man training days of a particular unit which was only 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. recruited and even a proportion of them were dead wood. In these days, commanding officers are quicker to discard the inefficient. They therefore find that a larger proportion of men and women are attending more frequently. That means that virtually every person in the unit, especially units that are 100 per cent. recruited, are using all their man training days for normal basic training. That does not allow sufficient room for people to go on courses, which is particularly important, in the early years.
It is also important to cater for key personnel who contribute much. I am thinking in particular of the company quartermaster sergeant, the training captain and various mechanics, without whom the Territorial Army could not be equipped, train or get on the move. Unless they are given the incentive and opportunity to go into the drill hall in their own time to prepare the equipment and vehicles, we shall be unable to keep the Territorial Army on the road.
Those key personnel—there are probably 10 or 12 even at company level—require between 80 and 90 man training days a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that matter.
Will my hon. Friend also look at the question of ammunition? I understand that the ammunition of artillery regiments is being cut by 50 per cent. and, as a gunner,


I know that there is nothing worse than spending a day on the range kneeling behind an artillery piece and firing only half a dozen rounds. One cannot keep up morale in such an atmosphere. Gunners are happy to stand in the snow and rain provided they can fire some rounds. I understand that small arms' ammunition has been cut as well by between 15 and 20 per cent., but that is also important.
If by the way the man training days are increased the petrol allocation will not then be enough. It is sufficient at present only because the man training days have been cut. It is not reasonable to expect men to accept payment for only a five to eight hour drill in return for a full day's work.
When my hon. Friend is considering an expansion of the TA will he think about reintroducing some of the more glamorous regiments? Many yeomanry regiments have been put into a Royal Signals role in the past. We ought to see the greatest increase in the yeomanry as cavalry or artillery, the SAS and the parachute regiments if we want numbers brought up to establishment as quickly as possible.
Labour Members have spoken about the privatisation of the Army. Many yeomanry regiments were formed by counties before the TA was established. The yeomanry regiments and the HAC, the oldest regiment in the Army, are the areas to which the Government should look for a major increase in numbers.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: By leave of the House, I should like to speak again. We have had an interesting and knowledgeable debate, which has been fairly non-combative and unbelligerent. The only warfare that occurred was over the use of the English language, and I consider that I won that battle bloodlessly and easily. I suspect that the Secretary of State was on my side, which is why he is Secretary of State. He always uses simple language.
I regard the Under-Secretary as an expert on defence matters. He has spoken in Army debates over many years, and I have read the reports of most of them. May I press him to be a little more forthcoming than the Minister of State was about future plans for the Royal ordnance factories? The Minister of State was vague and evasive, and his answers offer no comfort to those who work in the factories.
Those loyal public servants have suffered from the effects of the moratorium imposed by the Government and from the loss of orders for the Shah of Iran. They have adapted in a way that few work forces would have done, and they have done so because labour relations have always been good and there is a genuine community of interest between all those concerned with running the factories. They should not have been treated in the way that the Government are treating them. The Ministry is in danger of putting their good will at risk. When may we expect a final decision by the Government on exactly what form the Royal ordnance factories will take in future?
I wish to raise a point concerning the Royal ordnance factory at Blackburn, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has taken a specific interest and which he has asked me to raise on his behalf. Of course, many of my constituents also work in Blackburn. How will the Ministry of Defence make up the

shortfall and the loss of orders of £26 million? If the Minister does not have the answer now I should be happy if he would write to me or to my hon. Friend about that.
I come to a matter which was eloquently raised in an excellent speech by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith). Indeed, it was alluded to in Tuesday's debate by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). That is the ever-increasing cost of defence equipment. We cannot ignore this issue. I accept that it is at the root of this defence review, and that some review and some cuts would have happened whether or not Trident was a desirable project.
What is happening to the multi-country joint collaborative projects on development and production which were so optimistically regarded some years ago? Why have they turned out to be so disastrously expensive? Why has project after project been dropped, as indeed the project between this country and France or Germany to produce the new light combat aircraft will inevitably be dropped?
Has the Minister anything to say about the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, and argued most effectively in an article in The Economist, about the family of weapons, an idea whereby one country would manufacture one of the family of weapons and another country another? The Economist gives the example of anti-tank missiles. Europe would produce, say, one short-range missile, and the United States another, long-range missile. Has any progress been made on these projects, or is this just another matter that is interminably talked about in NATO but on which nothing is happening that is likely to lead to more economic defence equipment costs?
If something is not done as a matter of urgency, either Europe will have to give up defence manufacture altogether—with the loss of expertise and technology that that entails—or at—one might say at worst, or at best—the Secretary of State, of whatever party, will have to come to the House once again and announce more drastic cuts in our conventional forces. I hope that the Minister will have something realistic and constructive to say about that.
I wish also to ask the Minister about the report of the Select Committee on Defence on ammunition storage sites in West Germany. Having mentioned that report, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of that Committee. The reports that it has produced have been invaluable to our debates on defence matters. We should pay tribute to the members of the Committee. They have done a great deal to make defence matters much more comprehensible to hon. Members who do not normally take a great interest in them.
I should like to read two of the recommendations in the report. The first is:
We recommend that steps should be taken to get NATO-wide agreement on the basis for the calculation of ammunition expenditure rates and consequent levels of stock for both land and air forces".
The second recommendation contains words that sent chills down my spine. It is amazing how, in an innocent paragraph, in what could be conceived of as a rather boring report, most illuminating facts are revealed. It says:
Different national forces under the command of C in C NORTHAG"—
that means the Commander in Chief, Northern Army Group—
may not be provided with ammunition supplies sufficient to fight a war of the same duration. That being so the Commander, other things being equal, would have to plan for a period of


conventional warfare no longer than that able to be sustained by the Corps with the lowest level of supplies. He might therefore be forced to recommend the premature introduction of tactical nuclear weapons into the battle. It is of paramount importance"—
that is an understatement—
that all allied forces plan for and stock up to the NATO minimum level of supplies. Since BAOR levels of supplies are to be based on a national assessment of needs … the Government should seek to ensure that this assessment is introduced into NATO planning".
The Government quickly produced a White Paper in response to those recommendations—a White Paper that was helpful and sensible—but in view of the alarming scenario in that paragraph, can the Minister say what advances have been made? It is a very important matter.
We have all paid tribute to our troops in Northern Ireland, and it is unnecessary for me to do so again. I understand that they carry out three tours in five years. What effect does that have on morale? Do Service men feel any significant reluctance to do the tours? On my visit to Northern Ireland I had no evidence that they did, but on a matter of this importance the Minister, who is very well informed, will no doubt enlighten us.
If I were in the Territorial Army I should be blushing now. I do not see the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) blushing, but I suppose that Territirial Army officers are not the blushing type. I should be blushing if I had heaped on me the praise that hon. Members on both sides of the House have heaped correctly on the Territorial Army and its role. It is right that they should have praised this body of men and there is no need for me to add to that praise.
If 16,000 men are to be recruited into the Territorial Army, it is not only right but essential that they be properly trained and equipped if they are to play the role that is expected of them and that they would expect to carry out. I should like to have more details of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, (Mr. George) made a most interesting speech on the effect that the cost of Trident would have on future spending on our conventional forces. This is not the time or place for me to discuss Trident. I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to do so. That subject has already been debated. However, the minority report represented a devastating indictment of the folly of that exercise. My hon. Friend was right to say that matters of such importance, which involve vast sums of money, should not be decided upon and then debated in the House. If Chevaline were thrown at me, I would say that the same applies to that. Indeed the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I was not consulted about that.
The debate has been interesting, particularly as every hon. Member has been genuinely concerned to ensure that our Armed Forces are properly equipped to meet the tasks that we expect of them in the defence of this country and as part of NATO. I add my praise and commitment to the sentiments that have been expressed.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Philip Goodhart): I endorse the praise that the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) has lavished on the Defence Committee and on its report. He has touched on a most interesting, important and worrying point. Clearly, there are major divergences between the

national ammunition stocks that are held by the various countries. However, that is not a matter that we can decide unilaterally. We can decide to raise our stocks, but there is little that the House can do to persuade the Dutch, the Belgians and perhaps, even more important, the Danes that their stocks should be raised if the front is not to be thrown out of balance.
It will, I am sure, be no surprise to the House if I begin—like the hon. and learned Member for Accrington, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and, in particular, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown)—by paying tribute to our soldiers in Northern Ireland. I know that there is general support in the House and outside it for the job that our soldiers do with such admirable restraint. I have already noted the unexpected tribute paid to the Army by our former colleague Bernadette McAliskey when she was saved from death a few months ago by the intervention of the Army, after she and her husband had been attacked by terrorists. Yesterday, I noted that The Guardian writer, Anne McHardy, wrote:
Joan Lestor Labour MP for Eton and Slough and an old advocate of troop withdrawal confessed herself puzzled during a visit to Belfast to discover that the only organisation that seemed really to want the soldiers to leave was Provisional Sinn Fein".
Meanwhile, we have recently had ample indication of what would happen if there were to be a premature withdrawal of soldiers from Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) twice derided the idea of privatising the Armed Forces. Can anyone in the House doubt that the departure of our national Army from Northern Ireland would not lead to the growth of private armies?
It is not for me to comment on the legality of the recent actions and statements of the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but can anyone doubt that the threat of premature withdrawal would increase the number of hardliners drilling in the hills?
At the same time can anyone doubt that whispers of withdrawal would encourage the collectors of Noraid in the USA to rattle their collecting boxes still more loudly in the bars of Brooklyn and Boston.
Meanwhile the whole House will be well aware that the Army's role is to act in support of the Civil authorities and specifically in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The RUC's growing ability to deal with the men of violence has led over the years, to a steady reduction in their requirement for military support, and hence the Army force level in Northern Ireland. Here of course the Ulster Defence Regiment has been of substantial support to both the Regular Army and the RUC. The UDR now provides first-call support to the police over most of the Province patrolling rural and urban areas, guarding important sites and installations and manning vehicle check points. I shall gladly look at any points on pay anomalies presented by the hon. Member for Antrim, South.
Sadly, as we know, the UDR continues to be the subject of terrorist attacks. This year seven Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers have been killed—five of them while off duty. As a result of the increased strength of the RUC and UDR we have been able over the last 18 months to withdraw four of the regular military units deployed to the Province on short unaccompanied emergency tours.
I come to the point directly made by the hon. and learned Member for Accrington.
One of the many benefits that flow from a reduction in the number of unaccompanied units doing short tours in Northern Ireland has been a dramatic reduction in the amount of turbulence that the Army suffers. Two years ago, in the final defence debate of the last Parliament, I told the House about the First Battalion, Royal Regiment of Wales that had recently lost at a stroke more than 10 per cent. of its strength through premature voluntary retirement because in the previous 20 months it had spent 14½ months away from home—that point was made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer)—because the families could not stand that sort of separation and therefore the Army suffered. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that there is now a minimum of 20 months between Northern Ireland tours. In the corridors of the Ministry of Defence some people are talking of the problems of Army understretch rather than overstretch.
There is, however, one area in which Army specialist assistance to the RUC and the UDR to the people of Northern Ireland will not be reduced.
Of all the invaluable work performed by the Armed Forces in the Province, few tasks are so consistently demanding and dangerous as the work of the bomb disposal teams. Their levels of technical skill, coupled with ice-cool nerves, command the highest admiration and respect even among other members of the security forces in the Province, who themselves regularly face the dangers of terrorist attack. Men with the necessary attributes are a rare commodity, and at any one time there are only about 50 of them in small teams throughout the Province.
It is worth mentioning just a few of the cold statistics to bring home the value of the men who stand specifically between society and the bomb. In 1980, Northern Ireland bomb disposal teams were called upon on over 1,000 separate occasions, and so far this year the tally has run to over 600. Many of these—about half—turn out to be hoaxes or false alarms, but every one must be approached with the same care and thoroughness and makes the same demands of skill and courage.
We were shocked when, on 19 May, a 600 lb. bomb near Newry killed five soldiers. Very few of us, however, even noted in passing that on 3 February this year a bomb disposal team succeeded in neutralising an exactly similar bomb near Bessbrook in South Armagh, again containing more than 600 lb. of explosive. Similarly, as recently as 15 June, a van was found on the northern outskirts of Lurgan containing 600 lb. of explosives in beer kegs and was defused by our experts.
Alas, only a month or so ago a senior non-commissioned officer was killed while attempting to defuse a booby-trapped car bomb. He was the seventeenth soldier to be killed on these duties in Northern Ireland. Since 1971, over 150 decorations and gallantry awards have been made to soldiers working in this area.
The work of these courageous soldiers is backed up by another group of remarkable men—our research scientists working in this field. It was said this afternoon that our equipment comes through too slowly and is often too expensive and that our research establishments work at too leisurely a pace. That charge cannot possibly be levelled at the experts working in this field. In remarkably rapid time—and in the closest co-operation with the users—we have developed a range of equipment that has swung the

balance against the bomb. 'The full story of this scientific adventure will not be told for many years, but those involved deserve more than an interim vote of thanks.
However, not all the bombs are detected and made safe. The most devastating explosion in the past two years took place at Warrenpoint, where 18 soldiers were killed and five were wounded. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) rightly raised the question of delays in paying compensation.
Settlements or interim payments have been made in almost all the cases, but I am. concerned that seven families have not yet had their claims resolved. However, I am repeatedly assured that the time being taken to reach a settlement is not due to delays in my Department or in the Northern Ireland Office. The solicitor representing the families has not replied to the original proposals that were put forward as long ago as August 1980.
One understands that solicitors consider that it is often in the best interests of their clients to delay reaching a quick settlement. I hope that swift agreement is reached in this case. Meanwhile, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot about indexation is well taken. All the factors involved in the settlement are indexed so that there will be no loss to the people concerned

Mr. Johnson Smith: The matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) excited the interest of the House. He suggested that the solicitor might not reply. To what extent is the Army department pushing the reply? For how long does my hon. Friend think that the lack of indexation has caused this sulk with the solicitor and his client?

Mr. Goodhart: The factors involved are indexed, so there is no sulking on the part of the solicitors. One suspects that in these cases there is a belief that by deilay the settlements will be larger. Over the years the size of settlements has risen. They hardly ever go down. But now my—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister confirm, however, that the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), of £500 and £5,000, are in the nature of limits or maxima under certain conditions and that therefore the question of indexation is relevant to those figures?

Mr. Goodhart: The figures relate only to interim payments and do not themselves affect the final settlement. The indexation to which I am referring relates to the final settlement, not to interim payments.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I respect the Minister's courtesy in replying in detail to a member of his party. The Minister has spent over half his speech talking about Northern Ireland. We all accept that that is a pressure point. The Minister has a limited time to reply to questions about matters other than Northern Ireland. I hope that he will do us the courtesy that he has done his own Back Benchers who have not had the good manners to stay and listen.

Mr. Goodhart: The hon. and learned Member for Accrington referred to training, as did many hon. Members on both sides of the House. As the Minister of State reminded us, Exercise Crusader was the largest exercise of its sort undertaken since the war. We shall be producing a report for Parliament in the Autumn on the


lessons that we have learnt. Many of these are technical and unglamorous, such as the need to amend emergency powers, both here and in Germany.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) raised one point. I am told that, while it is not desirable from training or financial point of view to have a Crusader exercise every year, it is desirable to practice our reinforcement procedures more often and more thoroughly than we have hitherto.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Accrington and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, have suggested that cuts in the past year in training, particularly in ammunition and fuel, have had far-reaching effects.
It is not NATO practice to give precise figures on training ammunition, for security reasons, but I can say that last year the amount of small arms ammunition fired amounted to nearly 1,000 rounds per man and per woman in the Army, even counting cooks, clerks and bandsmen. This showed, roughly speaking, a 20 per cent. increase over the 1978–79 figures. There was a similar increase in mortar bombs fired and a smaller increase, but still an increase, in artillery rounds fired.
Meanwhile, we must remember the very heavy cost of training ammunition. Recently, while visiting the Benbecula rocket range, I met 10 officers and NCOs on the gunnery instructional staff course. I watched them fire a Lance missile and we calculated afterwards that the cost of that missile equalled the annual salary of 20 hon. Members. The men involved seemed much taken with the idea that they had each fired one hon. Member into lower space for two years. Meanwhile, on a less exalted plane, I note that the Army has spent no less than £1 million last year on wood and hessian for targets while the new, improved model aircraft targets for Rapier and Blowpipe firings will cost about £25,000 each.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the undoubted fact that the cost of equipment is escalating rapidly. We know that the cost of new helicopters is some three times the cost of the old helicopters. It has been said that the cost of the new armoured personnel carrier may again be some three times that of the old armoured personnel carrier. One of the most devastating examples of this increase in cost I saw recently in an exhibition of Clansman equipment. Clansman is a much more effective wireless set than Larkspur. It is also very much more expensive.
One of the most expensive items, curiously, was the carrier bag for equipment. The new Clansman bag was no less than 10 times more expensive than the old Larkspur bag. I have made some inquiries to discover the producer of this item of equipment that has escalated so enormously in cost. I do not wish to strike a discordant note, but I was told that it was the Royal ordnance factories.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said, in opening the debate, that I would cover a number of points such as training and the Territorial Army. I do not believe that I can really go beyond what he said earlier when he told the House that a number of factors have still to be explored and that no final decisions on the Royal ordnance factories, as a whole, or on individual factories, have yet been taken.

Mr. Joseph Dean: The Minister says that no final decision has been taken. A final decision has, however, been taken according to a written answer and correspondence that hon. Members have received indicating that there will be a drastic alteration in the situation. I said in my speech, and say again now, that it is palpably unfair for Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and say that they have taken the decision in principle but that they are not aware of the nuts and bolts that will be put together to carry out the decision.
One of the questions raised with those hon. Members who attended the recent lobby is that the Government are to explore legislation. This is contained in the letter that most of us received and also in the written reply. What kind of legislation will be needed to put their policy into operation?
Will the Minister come clean? He said that no final decision has been taken. The written answer clearly indicates that a final decision has been taken in principle. Is he saying only that the Government do not know yet how they will do it? If that is what he is saying, it is terribly unfair to the work force involved. Will he please say what kind of legislation the Government envisage, as there is a time scale involved in that?

Mr. Goodhart: I have said, and I repeat, that no final decision has been taken. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the opportunity that he has taken in the debate and that so many hon. Members have taken to put their views very firmly on the public record before the decision is taken.
Meanwhile, it would be fair to say—

Mr. John: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Goodhart: I have only a few minutes left. I have said that there is nothing that I can add to what the Minister of State has said.
Nearly all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have expressed their enthusiastic support for the increase that we have announced in the strength of the Territorial Army, but I am well aware that announcing an increase in the strength from 70,000 to 86,000 does not of itself produce a stronger force. I assure my hon. Friends that we are aware of the problems that an expansion of this sort involves. We shall be seeking ample advice in dealing with those problems.
It is plain that we shall have problems with finding enough senior NCOs and officers of the right quality. Here I should like to salute the imaginative recruitment programme of the Queen's and Scottish Divisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) had some useful ideas on flexibility of training. It is clear that we shall have to take a closer and more generous look at the number of Regular NCOs and officers seconded to the Territorial Army, so that volunteers are not overburdened with administration—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South.
We must see that equipment matches both the role of the unit and the capacity of the volunteers to learn how to use it in the training time available—a point thoroughly made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West. Here again, it will be particularly important to see that retention rates, which have been improving, improve still further.

Mr. John: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Goodhart: I have only about three minutes left. However, I give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. John: I want to make two brief points. When will the House of Commons be taken into the Government's confidence in regard to what they have decided about the Royal ordnance factories? The Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) should welcome the opportunity to affect the decision before it is made. What does that mean? What decision? Does he mean that the Government are prepared to consider keeping the Royal ordnance factory structure in its present form?

Mr. Goodhart: It will be one of the three options that have been outlined, and we have said that there will be ample consultation on this question.
I hope that the House will give the Army the support that it has earned in the past year and that it can expect from this House.

Mr. Donald Thompson (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Supreme Court Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Supreme Court Bill [Lords]

As amended, considered.

New Clause 1

AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITORS ACT 1974

'In section 50 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (jurisdiction of Supreme Court over solicitors, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
(3) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any order made against a solicitor by the High Court or the Crown Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in respect of solicitors under subsection (2).".'.—[The Solicitor-Genera1.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Bernard Weatherill): With this, we may take new clause No. 2—Appeal to Court of Appeal
'An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) from an order of the Court ordering a Solicitor to pay all or any part of the costs of any proceedings'.
and Government amendment No. 1.

The Solicitor-General: The Government's new clause is in pursuance of an undertakeing given in Committee to deal with a matter that was raised very properly by the Law Society because it needed dealing with. We did not deal with the matter in Committee because we wanted to make quite certain that we had got it right before tabling a new clause. I understand that all the people who are concerned with the clause agree that it does what we all want it to do.
The purpose of the amendment is this: it appeared that because these words had been left out in bringing into this statute the wording of a previous statute, it might have the unintended effect that a solicitor wishing to pursue the right of appeal given by the new clause would have to get leave to do so. The amendment ensures that that is not so. I shall say no more on the subject because I believe that what we are doing entirely meets the wishes of the Law Society and all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the matter.

Sir Walter Clegg: I first declare an interest as a practising solicitor. I welcome the new clause that has been introduced by the Solicitor-General, because it amends a grave injustice. It enables solicitors to receive natural justice. I therefore welcome the clause.

Mr. Peter Archer: This is a good beginning to our debates. In Committee, the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) and I were allies in urging the matter on the Government, and in new clause 1 the Solicitor-General has obliged. So here we are, three voices in harmony. I rise only to say that we are grateful to the Solicitor-General, and I hope that he keeps it up.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 18

RESTRICTIONS ON APPEALS TO COURT OF APPEAL

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 13, line 4, at end insert
'which are by law left to the discretion of the court Or tribunal'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 33

POWERS OF HIGH COURT EXERCISABLE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION

Sir Walter Clegg: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 25, line 35, leave out 'legal advisers' and insert 'solicitors'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 3, in page 25, line 36, leave out 'legal advisers' and insert 'solicitors'.
No. 4, in page 25, line 37, leave out 'legal adviser' and insert 'solicitor'.
No. 5, in clause 34, page 26, line 16, leave out 'legal advisers' and insert 'solicitors'.
No. 6, in page 26, line 17, leave out 'legal advisers' and insert 'solicitors'.
No. 7, in page 26, line 19, leave out 'legal advisers' and insert 'solicitors'.

Sir Walter Clegg: This is a simple matter, which was debated in another place. The term "legal advisers" in the clause is used, and it appears to have no legal definition. It is very wide. The Law Society feels that it would be better to insert the word "solicitors". If the word "solicitors" were inserted it would be able to communicate the contents of these reports to members of the Bar. The argument is that the word "solicitors" is legally defined and the term "legal advisers" is not. It is a small point, but I should like to hear my hon. and learned Friend's reaction to it

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for South Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) is right in saying that it is a small point, in the sense that the argument about it falls within a small compass. However, no one should be misled by that into thinking that it is not an important point. It is important to get it right.
In Committee I undertook gladly to reconsider the provision. My view is that the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, were right in what they said about this issue on Third Reading in another place. The term "legal advisers" had been used in the Bill from its inception and without any query on it, though the Law Society has, to its and our advantage scrutinised the Bill closely from start to finish. The Lord Chancellor expressed the view that "legal advisers" meant the solicitors on the record and counsel if instructed. Lord Elwyn-Jones echoed that view. I think that that is what it means. I think that it means exactly what we intend the provision to mean, namely, that documents shall be disclosed to the solicitor and counsel, if there is a counsel.
We are considering an unusual provision. We are not talking merely about the production of documents. In the usual course of events, once documents are disclosed they are available to the lay client, to anybody in the solicitor's office, and to counsel.
We are talking about disclosure in special circumstances in which it is not intended that the lay client should see the documents. We are specifically giving the court the power to say "No. We will not have these documents disclosed to the applicant alone, in which case everyone will see them." The court may say "We do not want the documents disclosed to the applicant. We shall say that, they shall be disclosed to the legal advisers." My advice

to the House is that that means that they shall be disclosed to the solicitor on the record and to counsel, if counsel has been instructed, or as and when he is instructed. I am sure that it would be the wish of the House to choose such wording that includes both solicitor and counsel. I do not believe that the wording includes anybody else.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: What is the position of the legal executive, either qualified or unqualified? There may be a reason why a qualified solicitor and a qualified barrister should be restricted persons for the purpose that my hon. and learned Friend intends. The words "legal adviser" seem to go wider and to cover both the qualified and unqualified legal executive.

The Solicitor-General: I have given my advice on what the words mean. I do not think that the wording may be extended to legal executives or to a secretary in a solicitor's office. It means the solicitor on the record. If we were to accept the amendment, the provision would be extremely narrow. I think that it would be too narrow. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) may say "Are you going too wide?" I do not think that we are. There is the fall-back, that it is entirely for the court to ask, within the limitations that we allow in the Bill, "Who shall see these documents?" As I said, it would not be right to limit the court to saying that only solicitors may see the documents. It is right to give the courts extra scope. That is given to them by using the term "legal advisers". I do not believe that I am wrong in the advice that I have given to the House, but if I am the remedy lies in the hands of the court. It may say specifically "We mean in this instance the solicitor on the record and/or counsel".

Mr. Richard Alexander: I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says, but is there not a possibility that "legal advisers" include, and often include in the general term, those who are not qualified? As they are not qualified solicitors, they are not subject to any of the disciplines that apply to solicitors on the record. They may deal with such information as they receive in a way that the court does not expect of them, in a way that is reprehensible, and in a way that would never be entertained by a solicitor.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if I failed to make the position clear to my hon. Friend. I do not believe that only the people to whom he refers are legal advisers. Even if I were wrong, the court is not obliged to say that those documents shall be disclosed to the applicant's legal adviser. It may say that those documents shall be disclosed to the solicitor on the record or the solicitor and counsel. The courts can say both those things within the wording, but they do not have to.
If anyone appearing on such an application fears the consequences to which my hon. Friend refers, it is open to him to say that he has doubts and to request that the wording be used. I do not believe that it is necessary, but it is open to someone who fears that that may happen to say that it would be unfortunate, because he did not want the documents to go to the legal executive or to anyone else, and to ask that they be limited to the solicitor on record and counsel? If the amendment were carried the court would have no scope save to say that the documents should go to the solicitor. I do not believe that anyone wants that.

Sir Graham Page: The background to the clause lies in the production of medical reports to overcome the difficulty that the courts and litigants or prospective litigants have had in the past of the doctors and hospitals refusing to produce the medical notes—rightly so—unless subpoenaed and put in the box so that they can be produced. It became a part of the law that an application could be made for a restricted production. That is now being put into statute, whereas up to now it has merely been case law.
The whole point of such an order is to prevent one of two things. The first is what we refer to in not quite legal terms as "fishing." If an applicant is fishing for a cause of action, I believe that the court would probably refuse such an order. However, if the court is satisfied that the applicant has some grounds for an action, usually those against the surgeon or the hospital for a form of negligence, in practice the court orders the notes to be produced, generally speaking to the medical adviser of the applicant.
The other reason for not producing the medical notes or reports is that it may be damaging for the applicant to see. It may be a matter of grave damage, where it would be wrong to allow the applicant to see those notes. Therefore, the restrictive order has been made in the past to produce the notes generally to the medical adviser of the applicant through the solicitor.
If it does not matter about the applicant seeing the notes, and if the court is satisfied that it is not a case of fishing for a cause of action, the court will make an order for production of those notes to the applicant, and the applicant can then go to whatever adviser he chooses. However, if it is desired to make a restrictive order and there is good reason for thinking that the applicant should not see the notes, for his or her own good, the order should be restrictive. It is now being provided in a statutory form that a court can order the notes to be produced to someone who is not on the record as a solicitor or who would not be on the record as a solicitor if the action started. It is giving the courts a much wider power than at present. It is a wider power than is granted according to the present convention. It is saying that the court can make an order for production of those medical notes to anyone who claims to advise the applicant on legal matters.
I suppose that it is out of date now, but in my early days of practice we had gentlemen called ambulance chasers, who were immediately on the scene after an accident to encourage the injured person to take action. An ambulance chaser, who was not a solicitor, passed the action on to some firm. He would have called himself a legal adviser. He advised the injured person where to go for legal advice, and that is advising, in law.
However, in this case it may be any person. Therefore, the clause puts into statutory form permission to the court to make orders that are outside the orders that are at present made.

The Solicitor-General: Yes. The clause gives these powers in the hope that they will be helpful to people who have suffered personal injury. That is the intention. That is why something different is being done, and I said so in Committee.
It is not simply a matter of logic. We want to help people who have suffered personal injury which may be serious. I agree that these are wider powers, but we must

remember that they apply only when there is some reason for not ordering production to the applicant. With respect, even as a form of words, I do not believe that the clause goes as far as my right hon. Friend suggests, but even if it did, we have tried to leave with the court the power to say who shall see, and everyone has agreed with that all the way through.
I am sure that the court will bear in mind the reason why we are giving this power. We want to help people who have suffered injury, but simply by having an open order for production, we do not want to do the opposite and to cause distress by producing documents that would distress them.
I take note of the concern that has been expressed. It is good that it has been expressed, and I am sure that the judges who will have to administer this provision will take note of it. However, I commend the Bill as it stands rather than as it would be as amended.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 35

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 33 AND 34

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 27, line 5, leave out '(2)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may discuss amendment No. 9, in page 27, leave out lines 6 to 10.

Mr. Archer: There were a number of useful exchanges in Committee arising out of the recommendations and queries by a committee of Justice sitting to consider reforms of civil procedure. It is still sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Laurence Libbert, QC, and includes some distinguished lawyers, such as Sir Denis Dobson and Sir Jack Jacob.
It was decided in Committee upstairs that in respect of some of these matters the Solicitor-General would write giving me the benefit of his reflections. He has been kind enough to do so, and I am grateful. We may return to most of them at a future date after we have all had the opportunity for consultation and further reflection, but I could not resist tabling the amendment, because I was intrigued by the Solicitor-General's answer.
Clauses 33 and 34 relate to some useful powers about the preservation of property and the disclosure of documents that may become the subject of an action hut before the action has been brought. The clauses relate to orders for disclosure and the production of documents by persons who are not parties to an action.
I was, puzzled, because, according to clause 35(4), those parts of the two clauses that extend only to personal injury litigation shall bind the Crown. However, clause 33(1)—that is to say, pre-trial preservation and inspection which extends to other classes of action—will bind the Crown only in respect of personal injury proceedings. In other words, it will not bind the Crown in respect of other kinds of action. I ask why. The Solicitor-General helpfully pointed out in his letter that section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, on which the clause is based, did not bind the Crown at all. The anxieties that I am expressing have existed all this time and we have not noticed them.
The Solicitor-General pointed out that it was only following the Winn committee on personal injury


litigation that the position was changed. Up to that stage I was grateful for what he had said, but he went on to say that
any further imposition upon the Crown would have to be justified on the merits.
I find that puzzling, because it seems to me that what requires justifying on the merits is the exemption of the Crown from remedies available against other litigants.
I say at once that I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. I am realistic enough to know that we reached the high water mark of our fortunes in these matters in Committee and, as the Government are not seeking to reverse an important decision taken in Committee, I am content to leave the present package undisturbed.
However, as the Solicitor-General reminded us in Committee, there will be other Bills and other occasions. So that we may have food for our reflections meanwhile, I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us why it is self-evident that the Crown ought normally to be exempt from procedural orders affecting its subjects.

The Solicitor-General: One of the good things about the Bill is that we have been able to argue things out and to agree on many of them. I regret to say that this is one on which we cannot agree.
I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the way in which he expressed his feelings. He is right to say that section 21 did not bind the Crown in any actions. We are taking a step in the right direction by removing the restriction in personal injury cases. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the House and the country will accept that we are doing so for no reason other than that the Crown has feelings too and accepts that when someone has suffered injury it is a special situation and one should not maintain the restriction unless there is a strong reason for doing so. We do not believe that there is such a reason in that class of injury.
I suggest, however, that different considerations arise in respect to other litigation, where the issues are less straightforward and less easily defined before the start of the proceedings. It is sometimes difficult to decide liability in personal injury cases, and even more difficult to decide what the damages should be. But the issues are fairly clear; one knows what one will be about and one knows that there will not be extensive discovery. There may be discovery of documents relating to special damage and medical matters, but a claim for immunity, for example, is unlikely to arise.
Take, first, proceedings for breach of contract or for the infringement of intellectual property rights. If the amendment were allowed, orders might be sought from the court for the detention or inspection of, say, military equipment or of property that was situated in a prohibited place for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act. If once the proposed plaintiff were to establish that a question affecting such property might arise in the proceedings which might, or might not, be started, the Crown's hand would be forced; it would be compelled to play the "public interest" card in a context of uncertainty.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar with the public interest card and he will agree that it has to be

played on occasions. The less the uncertainty surrounding it, the more satisfactory it is, though it is not a very satisfactory business anyway. It will have to be played in a context of uncertainty about the questions that will arise, the issues that will separate the parties by the time the case comes for trial and whether the threatened proceedings will ever be brought. Otherwise, it must yield to the application. That situation could not arise in a personal injuries case. I think that even from that brief explanation the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that it is not difficult to envisage cases in which that difficulty could arise. I must simply say that it is the Government's judgment at the moment that it is not in the public interest to have the question of injury to be considered in such uncertain and open ended circumstances.
Then there are orders for the inspection of documents. There is the question of property in the form of documents. The Crown has not yet had to argue whether "property" as defined in clause 35(5), which reproduces existing law, includes property in the form of documents. If it does, the implications for the Crown are very serious. Take, for example, an application to inspect documents in connection with proposed proceedings—not yet brought—for defamation, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution or wrongful dismissal. The Crown is inevitably the repository of much confidential and sensitive information which might have a bearing on such proceedings—for instance, information as to the investigation of crimes and regarding matters of security and in respect of prosecutions that may be brought in the future or which it may have been decided not to bring at all. If the Crown were faced with an application under clause 33 to inspect any such documents, but were not to have the benefit of having the issues clarified it would be in a difficult position.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind the stage of the proceedings with which we are dealing. Later on, when the proceedings have been brought and the issues are clarified, the Crown knows what it is dealing with, but if it were faced with an application under clause 33 to inspect any such documents before having the issues clarified and narrowed by an exchange of pleadings, it would be extremely difficult for it to decide whether and to what extent to claim that the disclosure of the document sought would be injurious to the public interest. It would be prejudicial to the public interest for the decision to be forced upon it in such an uncertain context. The pressure every time would be to make the claim, because that would be the only way to get around the uncertainty, and that is a bad thing.
It may be that in time we can find ways to overcome these problems. At the moment I am seeking, in as non-technical terms as I can on a very technical matter, to show that the Government's opposition to extending this is not without reasons. Those reasons may be argued out in time. That is why at this stage I am putting a good deal on record so that it may be argued out. I wish to say enough to show that there are arguments both ways which merit consideration.
In the ordinary rough and tumble of litigation between subjects a robust approach by the courts can no doubt be justified, but it is a different matter where the information which the Crown may be called upon to disclose is comfidential and sensitive and where the issue for the court is whether its disclosure would be injurious to the public interest. The Crown's position in these respects is


different. It is a matter for argument whether it is sufficiently different to preserve this for ever. Nevertheless, it is different. It is unique, and it needs, in the public interest, to be protected. I do not think that anyone would doubt that.
Those, in a rather abbreviated form, but I hope sufficiently full to give an indication of their substance are the reasons why the Government, while not only willing, but anxious, to take this one step forward in the interests of the person who has been injured, would not be willing to go any further forward—or rather, any further, as I would not accept that it would be forward—without full discussion of the kinds of problems to which I have referred.

Mr. Archer: I am very grateful to the Solicitor-General for that helpful deployment of the case. As he says, we may debate the matter on other occasions. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72

WITHDRAWAL OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST INCRIMINATION OF SELF OR SPOUSE IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 48, line 17, leave out from 'so' to end of line 19 and insert
'would tend to expose that person, or his or her spouse, to proceedings for a related offence or for the recovery of a related penalty—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
No. 14, in page 48, line 25, leave out 'for infringement of rights'.
No. 15, in page 48, line 26, leave out 'for'.
Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
No. 18, in page 49, line 8, after 'passing off', insert
'or attempt or conspiracy to infringe or pass off'.
Government amendment No. 20.
No. 21, in page 89, line 18, after `151(2)', insert 'and 72'.

The Solicitor-General: By a happy accident of timing, a decision of the House of Lords that could have had serious consequences was given at a time when there was before Parliament a Bill that enabled Parliament to do something about it. I refer to what is known as the Anton Piller order. There is no need to rehearse the importance of the case; we all agree about that. There is no need to repeat that we have all been anxious to deal with the situation to which that decision gave rise.
The Government went into action straight away. Those hon. Members who are present, most of whom were on the Committee, will know that we tabled a new clause in Committee, without waiting to ensure that we got it perfect, so that people could look at it. The people concerned had a good look at it, and they raised two problems, both very technical, but none the worse for that I shall not explain them, because I think that all those present know the two points that were raised.
The Government have taken those two points seriously, and so has the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). We have each in our way drafted

amendments to meet them. The only question for the House is which of the two sets of amendments should be accepted, as we both have the same objectives.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my saying that it is a great advantage to have the whole machine at one's disposal. Parliamentary counsel are experts at their job. Because we have that advantage, probably the Government amendments do the job that we all want to do as well as it can be done.

Mr. Archer: I am troubled. It will not commend me to my political colleagues to know that I am in complete agreement with the Government on any subject. but that is the position, and I refrain from any reference to great minds.
The Solicitor-General has dealt so completely with the matters that caused me to set down my amendments that there will be no need for me to move them. I shall not try to persuade the House that my efforts at draftsmanship are to be preferred to those of parliamentary counsel.
The anti-counterfeiting group is satisfied that the problems that the case raised have been dealt with by the Government amendments. I should have spoken of giving the Devil his due, if that had not sounded disrespect ful to the Solicitor-General. The Oppossition are grateful for what the Government have done.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 12, in page 48, line 20, leave out 'those' and insert 'the first-mentioned'.
No. 13, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following civil proceedings in the High Court, namely—

(a) proceedings for infringement of rights pertaining to any intellectual property or for passing off;
(b) proceedings brought to obtain disclosure of information relating to any infringement of such rights or to any passing off; and
(c) proceedings brought to prevent any apprehended infringement of such rights or any apprehended passing off.'.

No. 16, line 36, after 'offence'. insert
'or for the recovery of any related penalty'.

No 17, Page 49, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert—
'(a) in the case of proceedings within subsection (2)(a) or
(b)—

(i) any offence committed by or in the course of the infringement or passing off to which those proceedings relate; or
(ii) any offence not within sub-paragraph (i) committed in connection with that infringement or passing off, being an offence involving fraud or dishonesty;
(b) in the case of proceedings within subsection (2) (c), any offence revealed by the facts on which the plaintiff relies in those proceedings;
related penalty", in relation to any proceedings to which subsection (1) applies means—
(a) in the case of proceedings within subsection (2)(a) or (b), any penalty incurred in respect of anything done or omitted in connection with the infringement or passing off to which those proceedings relate;
(b) in the case of proceedings within subsection (2)(c), any penalty incurred in r0espect of any act or omission by the facts on which the plaintiff relies in those proceedings.
(6) Any reference in this section to civil proceedings in the High Court of any description includes a reference to proceedings on appeal arising out of civil proceedings in the High Court of that description.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 152

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made:

No. 20, in page 89, line 18, after 'Sections', insert `72,'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 3

AMENDMENTS OF COUNTY COURTS ACT 1959

Sir Walter Clegg: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 98, leave out from 'Court' in line 20 to 'on' in line 21

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
No. 26, in page 99, line 12 leave out subsection (4). Government amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37 and 38.

Sir Walter Clegg: The schedule gives the High Court the power of its own motion to transfer
the whole or any part of the proceedings to a county court".
We must look at the schedule in the light of another change that is being made in the law—that the jurisdiction of the county court will be increased in October to £5,000. We must consider it in the light of how one enforces a judgment in the High Court, as opposed to the county court. I tabled a new clause that has not been selected. It said that the power of enforcing judgments through sheriffs should be availalbe to the county court as well as to the High Court. When we last discussed the question of enforcing judgments my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said that there was no evidence that county court bailiffs were more ineffective than sheriffs.

The Solicitor-General: I wish to clarify this point, because it has appeared in print in many letters. I said no such thing. I said that I was convinced but that we needed evidence to convince others. I am glad that the Law Society has taken that up. However, I do not wish to be quoted as having said that there is no evidence.

Sir Walter Clegg: I should not like to misjudge my hon. and learned Friend. I was pleased to hear his remarks. Since the Committee stage, further evidence has been provided by the Law Society in some quantity. It is available and shows that sheriffs are more able to enforce judgments than are county court bailiffs.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the litigants to judge which court they wish to start in. At present, proceedings are started in the High Court that could well have been started in the county court. Because of the effectiveness of the High Court jurisdiction, the litigant chooses—although he may lose costs as a result—to start in the High Court. He believes that ultimately he will get judgment and costs. He may not be allowed costs, but he believes that it is better for him to have his judgment satisfied than to have a county court judgment that may be fine in principle but that the county court bailiffs, and so on, cannot satisfy.
The litigant should have the choice. Someone may decide that if he goes to the High Court to get a judgment he will not get his costs but will be able to recover the debt or damages. That is a perfectly logical choice to make. However, I fear that as a result of the clause it will be a temptation to the High Court to pass over anything less

than £5,000, willy-nilly, to the county court. I suspect that the object of the clause is to make people go to the county court, whether or not they like it. We now know that there are all sorts of problems connected with High Court judgments. I refer, for example, to their registration abroad and their recovery. As a result, the clause is odious, because it is not the litigant but the court that chooses.
By means of the reasons set out in the future section 75A(1)(b) the court could mechanically, and with little justification, send anything under £5,000 back to the county court. The Law Society is worried by this rule. which changes the present situation. Until sheriffs are able to enforce county court judgments, we shall dislike the provision intensely.

The Solicitor-General: I have some sympathy with the misgivings and I hope that this assurance will help my hon. Friend and the Law Society. If I felt that the High Court or an official in the High Court were to be given the power to decide which cases would go to the county court and that was the end of the matter, I would have misgivings, but I am authorised by my noble and learned Friend to say that if it is necessary to provide by rule for that it will be provided by rule that parties have a right to be heard on a proposal to transfer, if they wish. I also draw attention to the fact that they have a right of appeal to judge in chambers against any such order.
I hope that my hon. Friend will find that assurance and the second point of clarification of interest and that it will relieve some of his anxieties.
I felt some of those anxieties until I was authorised to give that assurance and realised that there was a right of appeal. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the balance has been put right.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Notwithstanding the Solicitor-General's welcome assurance, I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir Walter Clegg). There is a tendency on the part of the Law Officers' Department to assume that the county court is a convenient and cheap form of jurisdiction and that it is advantageous for litigants to pursue their claims there. Consequently, proceedings should be transferred to the county court if the case comes within the jurisdiction of that court.
In practice, for a large number of litigants in many circumstances it is infinitely more convenient, if their solicitor is practising within the area of the High Court or the district registry, to pursue proceedings in the High Court than to make arrangements to conduct the proceedings in a county court, which may be remote for the solicitors and the parties. In practice, proceedings in the county court may be more expensive to conduct and less satisfactory to all aspects of the case, because it may be necessary to travel considerable distances or to instruct agents to appear.
I accept the Solicitor-General's assurance, but the Bill provides that
the High Court may …of its own motion … transfer … proceedings to the county court if … the High Court is satisfied … that the amount recoverable in respect of the claim is likely to be within the monetary limit of the jurisdiction of the county court.
It is often more satisfactory and speedy for the High Court writ to be issued for perhaps a relatively small sum. It is more satisfactory to pay £40 and get no costs, in order to receive one's Order 14 judgment in a short time, than it


is to apply to the county court. One has to send off the proceedings by post or instruct local agents to deal with it. But it is evident from the way in which the schedule is framed that it is contemplated that an official of the court may say "You are only claiming £3,500. Therefore you cannot pursue your proceedings here."
That would be grossly unsatisfactory and is why I welcome the assurance of the Solicitor-General. It is perhaps too late to ask for further thoughts about it, but I hope that it will be made clear that that will not be dealt with in the way that I fear it might.
10.45 pm
Although they have not yet been moved, I take it that it is in order for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer to the Government amendments grouped with this amendment. I refer, therefore, to amendment No. 27, which seeks to provide that
If the High court thinks it desirable, at any stage in the proceedings commenced in a county court or transferred to a county court … should be heard and determined in the High Court, it may order the transfer to the High Court of the proceedings".
I am mystifed by that provision. The Bill as it stands provides that the High Court
on the application of any party to the proceedings, may order the transfer of the whole or any part of the proceedings to the High Court".
The amendment does not say who would make the application. We have proceedings going on in the county court. The Bill as it stands makes it clear that any party can apply to the High Court for transfer of those proceedings to the High Court. The amendment provides that proceedings will be transferred to the High Court
If the High Court thinks it desirable",
but it does not say who should make the application and how the matter is to be brought before the High Court.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will explain the purpose of the amendment. On the face of it, it seems that only by the use of the provisions in section 75B(2)—that is,
(power of High Court to issue prerogative orders)",
would one be able to go to the High Court and ask to transfer the county court proceedings to the High Court. If that is so, it is a clumsy way to transfer what can be immensely important proceedings, started in the county court against a defendant who has important reasons for wishing the proceedings to he dealt with in the High Court. It would restrict his right to get the action transferred to the High Court, as it might involve major points of law, which could be of tremendous importance to the party. It would restrict his capacity to get the action transferred by prerogative writs.
If that interpretation is correct, I hope that the Solicitor-General will not press the amendment. The Bill as it stands is immensely preferable to one in which it would be necessary to use the prerogative procedure instead of making an application to the High Court under the existing procedure.

Sir Graham Page: We are in considerable difficulty in dealing with the amendments. To start with, we are dealing with a schedule to the Bill that makes substantial alterations in the practice and procedure of the county court. We then have to look at an order that is in draft form before the House to understand that, at the same time as we are dealing with the Bill, the county court jurisdiction is to be increased from £2,000 to £5,000. We have to look

at still further orders to see whether the parties to proceedings will have an opportunity to be heard if the case is transferred from one court to the other.
We also have to wait for a further order to know what will happen about the costs of the proceedings. The costs in the county court and in the High Court differ greatly. If the jurisdiction is to be increased from £2,000 to £5,000, and if the High Court on its own motion can switch a case from one court to the other., it seriously affects costs and may leave a litigant with a considerable loss in the costs that he has incurred, leaving him to pay them himself, instead of possibly getting them out of the other side.
The whole thing is extremely confusing. I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's assurance that the parties will have an opportunity to appeal to the court in some way if at any stage in the proceedings a transfer is ordered by the High Court to the county court. That will come in rules of court, which are not before us at present.
I am puzzled by the phrase
any stage in the proceedings to which this section applies.
It will be possible for the High Court to prevent a litigant who has a High Court judgment, and who wishes to enforce it by the sheriff's officer, from having it transferred thereupon to the county court, but in some areas he will be left with almost an impossible task of recovering it within a very long period.
The ability of the High Court, on its own motion, to transfer cases goes to the root of the whole of the change in the jurisdiction of the county court. The change in procedure and the change in costs are all tucked away in a schedule.

Mr. Archer: I rise simply to say that I share the anxiety expressed on both sides of the House about the proposal. I am troubled, for a number of reasons, about the proposals that it appears are being made to send more business to the county court. The amount at stake is almost the only criterion.
One of the problems that trouble me is enforcement. Others have been cited in the debate. It helps to know that the parties will be given the right to attend and argue, but I am still troubled at the possibility that the court might decide to dispatch the whole case to the county court, despite the protests of all the parties involved.
I really rose to give notice that if I can do so within the rules of order, I propose to raise some of these problems on Tuesday in the Standing Committee. For the moment, I am content to echo what has been said in the debate

The Solicitor-General: Of course these matters are complicated. I do not shrink from that in any way. Nobody knows better than the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) how we get into such a situation. Some things have to be done in a Bill, and others have to be done in orders. We must try to produce a reasonable end product.
It is because I understand the difficulties—and I think that this is accepted—that on every occasion I have not hesitated to give firm and clear assurances on what I understand to be the intention. I have given assurances which, so far as they go, bind the Government. That is the most that I can do, as right hon. and hon. Members know.
I do not shrink from putting this on the record. It is not intended that officials should have the right to say "You, you and you go to the county court". That is not what is intended. It is to be a judicial decision, after the parties have been heard, subject to a right of appeal.
Those assurances do, I hope, put a different complexion on the matter. Perhaps they do not go as far as some hon. Members would like, but I believe that they put a different complexion on it from that which one gets from just looking at the statute. The assurances would not necessarily be found in the statute anyway. Giving effect to them would normally depend upon the rules.
The point feared by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) will not arise. I understand that the amendment replaces section 115 of the existing Act, and a party will be able to apply. In a manner that is common, provision relating to how a party applies will be set out in the rules.
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) for raising this matter. It is only by a combination of what we are now doing and of the rules make under the Bill, the County Courts Act and the order to be debated next Tuesday that we arrive at the final and complete answer. I can only do my best, as a practitioner all my life, to assure hon. Members that they are pushing

'TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS TO HIGH COURT BY ORDER OF HIGH COURT


75B.—(1) If the High Court thinks it desirable, at any stage in proceedings commenced in a county court or transferred to a county court under section 75A of this Act, that the proceedings, or any part of them, should be heard and determined in the High Court, it may order the transfer to the High Court of the proceedings or, as the case may be, of that part of them.'.


(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section is without prejudice to section 29 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (power of High Court to issue prerogative orders).


'TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS TO HIGH COURT BY ORDER OF COUNTY COURT


75C.—(1)'

No. 28, in line 35, leave out from first 'court' to end of line 40 and insert
'which the High Court would have jurisdiction to hear and determine if they were commenced in it, other than—

(a) matrimonial causes;
(b) applications relating to the adoption or custody of, or access to, minors (including applications relating to guardianship or custodianship).
(5) This section applies to all proceedings transferred to a county court under section 75A of this Act.'.

No. 29, in page 106, line 46, after `for', insert 'of'.

No. 30, in page 107, line 27, after `(interpretation)', insert—
'(a) after the definition of "landlord" insert— "'matrimonial cause' has the meaning assigned to it by section 10(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1967; "; and
(b)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 5

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 109, line 18, leave out 'Courts Act 1971' and insert 'Criminal Appeal Act 1966'.

No. 32, in page 111, line 42, at end add—

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1967(c. 56)

In section 10(1), for the definition of "matrimonial cause" substitute—
matrimonial cause" means an action for divorce, nullity of marriage, judicial separation, or jactitation of marriage or an application under section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973;'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

at an open door on most of these points. I understand what they are talking about. I want to hold as fair a balance as possible between the parties.

I do not wish the court, especially anyone less than the judges, to have the right simply to say "You will go here. You will go there. You will go elsewhere." I am on record over the years as saying so. I hope that my assurances will set hon. Members' minds at rest. Having obtained them myself, they have helped to set my mind at rest.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 24 in page 99, line 3, leave out from 'which' to end of line 5 and insert
'(disregarding any limitation by reason of amount or value or annual value) a county court would have jurisdiction to hear and determine if they were commenced in it'.

No. 25 in line 9, leave out from 'applications' to end of line 11 and insert
'relating to the adoption or custody of, or access to, minors (including applications relating to guardianship or custodianship):
(3A) This section applies to all proceedings transferred to the High Court under section 75B or 75C of this Act.'.

No. 27, in page 100, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'At' in line 8 and insert—

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 112, line 39, at end add—

'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970 (c. 31)

In section 37 for the words "no court other than a county court shall" substitute the words "the High Court shall not".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 36.

The Solicitor-General: The purpose of these two linked amendments is to remove obsolete provisions in section 37 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Section 37 relates to county court jurisdiction in mortgage actions—this is the real point, in my book anyway—and the amendments will facilitate the forthcoming consolidation of the county courts legislation. A number of hon. Members who have had experience of consolidation Bills will know the importance of taking the opportunity in advance of consolidation to put right matters that make small adjustments that will help in the consolidation but could not simply be put through as a matter of consolidation. The amendment has that purpose. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 120, line 59 [Schedule 7], at end add—

'11 &amp; 12 Geo. Companies Act 1948. 6. c. 38.
In section 219, in subsection (1), the words from "at any time" to "or may", and subsection (2).'—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 35 in page 121, line 27, column 3, at end add—
'Section 52(2).'.
The purpose of this amendment is to repeal section 52(2) of the County Courts Act 1959, which is obsolete. As it is obsolete, I think that I need say no more about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 125, line 21, column 3, at end insert—
'Section 37(3).'
No. 37, in line 25, leave out 'and 20' and insert
', 20 and 22, and in paragraph 23, the words "and section 63 thereof (transfer of probate proceedings from High Court to county court)," and ", in each place where they occur,".'.
No. 38, in page 126, line 27, after '1', insert '6(3)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11 pm

Sir Walter Clegg: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has been helpful to us during the course of the Bill. It is largely a consolidation Bill, but it has put right some wrongs and it has, I hope, made the administration of justice more effective. My hon. and learned Friend promised us an administration of justice Bill in which we can put right the wrongs that this Bill does not put right. I hope that we shall have that Bill in the very near future.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I echo what was said by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg). There is much that is good in the Bill, and on the whole it represents an advance. It is a marginally better Bill now than it was when we first started to consider it in Committee.
I am a little concerned about schedule 3, which we have just been considering. The amendments to the County Courts Act 1959 appear to be paving the way for an increase in the extent to which the county courts can be used as a substitute for the High Court.
When the county courts were introduced, they were seen as the people's courts—courts where indifferent justice would be provided at a low cost. They have in many respects proved to be the courts in which those with limited means find that they get their justice, but only at considerable expense, because they are not able to recover the costs that they ought to be able to recover from the guilty defendent in any complex case.
I gather that this is an issue that will come before the House on the consideration of a statutory instrument, but to the extent that the Bill paves the way for an extension of the jurisdiction of the county court in major contested cases—and to the extent that the costs recoverable by a

successful party in the county court continue to be limited as they have been in the past—it will pave the way for a deprivation of justice rather than for an enhancement of it.

Mr. Lawrence: Some of us were concerned about clause 69, which originally required the judge to consider the probable length of a trial in relation to whether a jury could be sworn. We were therefore cheered to see that the Government were defeated in the House of Lords. But at this stage we should say "Thank you" to the Government, because they have not sought to restore the original clause and have accepted the will of the House of Lords, and also the substantial views that were expressed in this place on Second Reading. A sincere word of thanks is due and would, I think, be echoed by all those in the profession who were anxious about the original clause 69.
It is a shame that we were not able in the Bill to deal with another matter that had arisen at the time concerning inquests. Clause 44 is titled
Extraordinary functions of judges of High Court
and there was on the face of it an apparent opportunity to extend the functions of High Court judges to deal with coroners. It is a pity that the long title of the Bill did not allow that to be done. It means that once again we have to raise issues of that kind in another piece of legislation, when it would have been so much better all round if it could have been discussed, debated and perhaps passed in this Bill.
I congratulate the Government on having piloted the measure, which was contentious in parts, so successfully through the House. I hope that all the matters that have been raised in this short Third Reading debate can be more conveniently and expressly discussed soon in this place.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful for the atmosphere in which our debates have taken place. We have considered these matters on their merits. I think that we have improved the Bill in at least one important respect. I do not propose to make a lengthy Third Reading speech. I cannot wait to make my Second Reading speech when the Administration of Justice Bill comes before the House.

The Solicitor-General: No one should underestimate the importance of the changes that we have made. Those who were members of the Committee will know that I am wedded to improving the means of enforcing judgments. There is nothing worse than to have an efficient system of obtaining a judgment and nothing to follow it up. It is pointless, and it brings the procedure into disrepute. I am wedded to the idea that the Law Society and my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) have been floating. I am not following them, because I have been in it from the start. I have been pursuing it for 10 years at least, and possibly 15 years. I hope that bringing building society deposits and national savings into the scope of the garnishee will actively assist many people.
I have referred to the Administration of Justice Bill on more than one occasion. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde did not really mean to say that I have promised a Bill. I am sure that everybody present knows that I cannot promise a Bill. However, I hope that it is apparent to the House that I wish to see such a Bill at an early date. There is much scope for continuing the


helpful co-operation which we have established during the passage of the Bill and further improving matters, especially with regard to the enforcement of judgments.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Merseyside (Urban Development)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we take the five orders together.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Local Authorities) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.
The orders that I put before the House would vest in the Merseyside development corporation 508 acres of land owned at present by public bodies. It is mainly discarded and derelict dock and railway land within the urban development area that the corporation has been established to regenerate. The orders are made under section 141 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. They cover land in three separate public ownerships—namely the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, the British Railways Board, and the City of Liverpool—and are situated in three districts; Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral. Hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study the maps that show the areas concerned.
The orders mark an important step forward in the progress of the Merseyside development corporation, which was established on 25 March this year by an order approved both in this House and in another place.

Sir Graham Page: Has my hon. Friend noticed that there is not a soul on the Opposition Benches? It seems that no one Opposition Member is interested enough to attend a debate on an important development matter for an area in which there is a great shortage of employment. The Government propose to provide work through which employment may be generated.

Mr. Shaw: I take note of what my right hon. Friend says. Obviously it is a matter of regret that the Opposition are absent. It is also symptomatic of the fact that the passage of the orders is welcomed by those on both sides of the House. This is not a matter of contention between the major parties. It is in a sense a formal endorsement of the progress that was initiated by the establishment of the corporation earlier this year.

Mr. Anthony Steen: When the London Docklands Development Corporation orders were debated last week the House had to endure a most contentious debate during which the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) made a number of aspersions about the development corporation and seemed to be more concerned about democracy procedures and consultation than about the fact that £60 million was going into Docklands. Is not my hon. Friend surprised that, given the current situation on Merseyside, not one hon. Member of the Opposition parties is in the Chamber? Should not he say something—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a long intervention. I had better inform the House that the orders are narrow and consequential. They relate only to the vesting of the land referred to in the five orders. We cannot have a general debate about the situation.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The orders for the London Docklands Development Corporation were also vesting orders, and extremely narrow—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must catch my eye and make his speech. Then I shall decide whether he is in order. I was merely saying that the intervention was long.

Mr. Shaw: I take note of what my hon. Friend said. There are some major differences between the two events, which might become clearer as we proceed.
The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who was involved for the Opposition in those matters, said that he totally supports the orders now before the House and that he would not be pressing opposition to them.
Freehold ownership of these areas will enable the corporation to get ahead with a comprehensive, yet sensitive and flexible, approach to the redevelopment of a large part of the urban development area. It will enable the corporation to compete on more equal terms with other areas in attracting investment and it will help the corporation to meet the requirements of the investment institutions. The vesting procedure avoids delaying action on the ground, since the assessment of compensation and much of the detailed work involved in compulsory purchase order procedure or a purchase by agreement do not have to be undertaken until after a vesting order is confirmed, giving relatively speedy landlord control over the land.
The orders were made and laid before Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and British Rail orders. The judgment was reached that all five orders were hybrid. Anyone whose private interests were affected had an opportunity to petition against the orders.
Eight petitions, four each from the MDHC and BR, were laid. Those petitions were not against the principle of the orders. The petitioners were concerned about various matters relating to rights over the land, access, severed parcels of land not covered by the orders, services, statutory and other obligations and other matters which are not dealt with by vesting orders themselves. Discussions with the owners have resulted in agreements being signed and the subsequent withdrawal of all of the petitions. It is possible now, therefore, to proceed with the discussion and, I hope, the approval of the orders by the House.
I shall describe briefly the land covered by the orders. The three orders relating to Mersey Docks and Harbour Company land deal with sites in Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral respectively. In Liverpool, there are some 378 acres of MDHC land in the South docks, the disused oil tank farm at Dingle and other vacant lands at Riverside. Those areas, especially the South docks, need to be dealt with in an integrated way and a series of tasks will be undertaken to bring the land back into active use: some filling of docks, repairs to lock gates and walls, reinstatement of the working machinery to trap the tide in some docks, refurbishing buildings, road and environmental improvements and the provision of basic services.
The MDHC No. 2 order vests six small sites in the portion of the urban development area which lies in the borough of Sefton, in total 6.6 acres. Those sites, together with some larger tracts of railway land to be acquired under the British Railways Board order, are subject to less severe problems of site preparation and will offer some of the earliest opportunities for attracting private sector investment.
The MDHC No. 3 order vests the 19 acres Scotts Field on the Wirral. That is a prominent site fronting the River Mersey directly opposite Liverpool city centre with potential for industrial development. Ultimate use will depend on the outcome of discussions with the MDHC on other land in its ownership within the Wirral part of the urban development area and with the North-West Water Authority which has long-term plans for a sewage treatment works in the vicinity, but not necessarily on that site, as part of a programme to clean up the River Mersey. Interim industrial use is a second option.
The British Railways Board order covers sites in all three district council areas. The largest sites are those in Sefton, to which I referred earlier, and those total some 34 acres. The sites in Liverpool are adjacent to the South docks, while, on the Wirral, some six acres of land at Egerton and Woodside offer opportunities for much-needed environmental improvements, and are important also in land assembly and to secure access to larger areas which the corporation hopes to see redeveloped.
Before dealing with the sites in the local authorities order I must apologise to the House for a discrepancy between schedule 2 to the order and the accompanying map. Plot 3—0.76 acres in Sefton—has inadvertently been omitted from the vesting order map. I apologise unreservedly for this. The effect of this will be, if the order is approved, that plots 1 and 2 would vest in the corporation but plot 3 would not do so as a result of the order. Arrangements are in hand for the corporation to purchase the site by agreement from the borough of Sefton.
The remaining two sites are owned by the city of Liverpool—the leasehold of a small plot in Sefton and the freehold of a large 54 acre site of tipped foreshore at Riverside which, together with the adjacent MDHC land, the corporation intends to landscape and develop for recreational use.
The compensation payable for vesting of land cannot be specified at present: It will be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the 1980 Act, which are based upon the open market value of the land assessed in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961. The cost of acquisition of the land vested by these orders will be financed by grant-in-aid from the UDC Vote. The fairly extensive reclamation works required on the land will also be grant financed. The financing of subsequent development on the land will depend on the nature of agreements with developers, among other things.
The land in these orders, together with a further 50 acres which the corporation has approval to acquire by agreement, constitutes a substantial proportion of the fairly tightly defined urban development area. Further possible acquisitions from the MDHC on the Wirral are currently under discussion. In addition, the corporation will be concerned to see that the key Albert/Salthouse/Canning dock area, close to Liverpool centre, is restored and developed. That site remains the subject of negotiations between the MDHC and an interested developer, and the result of a listed building inquiry will be announced shortly. For the moment, however, we are concerned with the vesting of some 508 acres.
These areas of exceptional dereliction and decay require a single-minded and comprehensive approach which also builds upon the assets of existing firms and the geographical advantages of a city centre riverside location. The corporation faces a challenging task. It is equipping


itself with key staff, and it has a board that incorporates much local knowledge and expertise. The resources that the Government are making available in this and subsequent years will provide the basis for dealing with the difficult job of securing the regeneration of the deteriorating and derelict areas covered in the orders.
It is the Government's belief that a corporation such as the Merseyside Development Corporation is the only means capable of bringing new life back to these neglected lands. In doing so, co-operation with existing agencies will be a keynote. The corporation expects to make an active start on sites in much of its area in this financial year.
Some engineering and borehole survey work has been undertaken already, and some initial projects in cooperation with the Manpower Services Commission have started. If the House approves the vesting of these lands, the corporation stands ready to get ahead with its statutory duty; securing the much needed regeneration and additional job provision on Merseyside. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. John Roper: As the House will have noticed, certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends are unable to be present to debate these important orders. I apologise particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who was in the House earlier but has had to return to Liverpool. He has asked me to say how much he welcomes these orders. He feels that they play an important part in the development of the urban development corporation, which we believe can, in turn, play an important part in the redevelopment of the heartland of Merseyside. This is an important initiative from the Government, which we welcome.
We are concerned that the resources available to the corporation may not be adequate. There may well be opportunities later to return to that subject. However, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to say that we appreciate these orders and will support them.

Sir Graham Page: I call attention to the fact that no Labour Member is present. The gallant and brave hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) has turned up to speak for his smaller party and we appreciate his support. The rest of the Opposition Benches are empty.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that the orders covered narrow matters, but they are a substantial step in the development of Merseyside, which has 42 per cent. unemployment in the construction industry. The orders are a step towards massive construction contracts that are already contemplated by the courporation. Some of us have had the projects in hand explained to us. They will make a substantial difference to employment on Merseyside and the future of the area.
The orders vest the several areas covered by the development corporation. Will they have to be followed by further compulsory orders, or do they place properties finally in the hands of the corporation, so that it may develop as it chooses? I understand that there is issue between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the

development corporation over apparently derelict land which the company wishes to hold in contemplation of a development scheme.
I do not wish to accentuate the issue. I just want an answer. If the Secretary of State is called on to decide the issue, on what principle will he reach a decision? Will he tell the corporation that it must allow the harbour company to hold land indefinitely, even though it may have no firm plans to develop it before the end of the century, or will he say that the urban development corporation is such an important development that the harbour company must make up its mind to use the land now or allow the corporation to develop it? That applies particularly to the Wirral area.
The orders will be a real benefit to employment on Merseyside. I hope that the development corporation will assist in setting up not just warehouses and buildings directly related to goods going to and fro across the docks but the small businesses that can thrive on the work in the docks. In the old days, the premises of chandlers, small ship repairers, and so on, were part and parcel of dockland. The Liverpool area will be developed far more from the social point of view than from the dock point of view, but the Sefton area is well placed for the development of smaller businesses. I therefore hope that the development corporation will bear that in mind.
Altogether, the Minister may rest assured that 99·9 per cent. of the population on Merseyside welcome these orders.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am most grateful for the opportunity to say something about these orders, particularly as it is increasingly difficult to catch the eye of the Chair and speak even briefly in major debates. Even at this late hour, it is a great opportunity to say a few words. I shall obey your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the narrower narrowness of the order, which will perhaps also confine me to a limited speech.
I should like to point out to the House that when the vesting orders for the London Docklands Development Corporation were debated on 1 July a full hour and a half was given to the debate, which ranged over a very wide area. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) covered matters of democracy and local structure. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) also made a very volatile and tremendously encouraging speech about the future of that corporation. I mention that only because I hope, in a less wide-ranging speech, to cover some of the matters dealt with in a similar way in the debate on 1 July.
First, I reiterate the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The rioting and wanton violence of the last week in Liverpool have sent shudders through the whole country. The House was packed earlier this week to discuss those matters and no doubt it will be packed for next Thursday's debate when the Opposition will probably press for more Government money. It is therefore amazing and it must be recorded that at this hour, which is not very late, not one right hon. or hon. Member of the principal Opposition party has thought it significant enough, perhaps because they do not think that the press is listening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Here they are."] I am glad that two silent Labour Members are now present. The point is still just as important, however. No Opposition Members, either Labour or Liberal, represent


ing Liverpool or Merseyside constituencies feel that the vesting of hundreds of acres of land in that strife-torn city is worth the trouble of staying in the House to debate this crucial order. I have probably laboured the point enough now, but it should be remembered when next Thursday's debate takes place exactly what the situation was today.
This vesting order has a great deal of significance in providing a further example of public intervention in the life of Liverpool. There are various views about the success of public intervention. There have been a great number of campaigns to bring more public money into Liverpool. The figure that I have is that a minimum of £500 million has come into Liverpool from the public sector over the past 10 years. There have been more social workers and community leaders and more social and environmental projects than probably any other city in Europe.
In 1968 we saw the beginning of the urban aid programme. There were then the community development project, the educational priority areas, the inner city studies, the urban deprivation unit, the comprehensive community programmes, the partnerships, the inner urban area Acts, and any number of schemes aimed at bringing in more public money in the hope that this would solve Liverpool's problems.
The urban development corporation is different from these other schemes in one respect. It is based on the belief that the revitalisation and future of the decaying urban areas lies in economic regeneration rather than in social or community work. That is an important departure from the approach of previous schemes. Therefore, although it will mean greater public intervention—and through a quango—it is a fund designed economically to develop the strength and life of Liverpool. To that extent we should welcome it.
Many matters give cause for concern about the urban development corporation. First, will it attract private enterprise? Upon that will depend its success. Will it be able to attract private investment to a strife-torn area? The private investors will want to know whether the returns will be good—whether, if they put their money into Liverpool, they will get as much in return as if they invested elsewhere.
That is one of the problems that need to be dealt with at an early stage. Unless the private investor can be persuaded to invest in this strife-torn area there can he no growth in Liverpool. We must consider therefore, whether the urban development corporation on its own will bring the private sector to Liverpool. Will the Minister deal with that? I am not sure that by itself the corporation will possess sufficient financial inducement to do so.
Infrastructure is crucial. Unless it is provided—with State money—there will be a greater inducement for the private sector to locate on the green field sites on the edge of the city. What inducement will there be, therefore, for the investment to go to the inner city and not to the outskirts? Will the Minister say whether there will be special incentives to encourage firms to go "down town" rather than outside the city.
A number of other matters need to be considered when we vest the land. Has the Minister considered establishing a free port on the land where the urban development corporation is currently based? If such a port were established—and the land is well prepared for a free port—it would bring the great advantages of a tax haven, much like the Shannon port in Ireland, which has attracted

so much private enterprise. If the key to Liverpool's revitalisation is the attraction of private enterprise and the return of private investment, there must be some tax incentive or other financial inducement to achieve that.
A tax haven or free port would have the significant advantage in that goods could be landed from ships straight on to the docks. There can be manufacturing companies on the docks, contained within a wall or fence. Those companies can change the nature of goods brought in from abroad and ship them out again without paying any duties or tax.
The advantages of tax-free ports all over the world are well known. The small firm with cash flow problems can manufacture goods brought in in their raw state and send them out without having to go through the painful process, with all the bureaucracy entailed, of paying duty and tax.
There are advantages in having part of the land already in the urban development corporation earmarked, on the Liverpool side anyway, as a tax-free port. the matter has been raised many times in Liverpool, and the general feeling in the city is that any scheme that is likely to bring back more private enterprise should be encouraged. It will not cost the Government any extra money. All that they have to do is to mark out the area that will be the free port. Then it will be policed by a self-financing corporation that can look after the security aspects. Goods can be landed there and stored. If there is a quota on them, they can be brought into the country and at that point duty is paid.
The vesting orders have great advangtages, in that the development corporation can immediately start on the infrastructure. Rather than give financial inducements in the shape of grants from public funds, the Government should remember that the introduction of a tax-free zone or free port would cost them no extra money, but could give small businesses a chance to succeed.
This is a narrow order, and it would be wrong of me to go on much longer on a matter that you may feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is extraneous to the main argument. But this is a much more important matter than the numbers on the Opposition Benches suggest. I hope that next Thursday I shall catch the eye of the Chair and be able to say some of the things that I feel the House would prefer me not to say tonight.

Mr. Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, I should like to comment briefly on the points that have been raised in the debate.
I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) on behalf of himself and his party, and in particular on behalf of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who cannot be present tonight. I am grateful for the hon. Member's welcome for the orders.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) asked whether a compulsory purchase order procedure would have to follow vesting. It would not; the vesting orders are themselves sufficient for the completion of the purchase arrangements. There would be the possibility of the urban development corporation's acquiring other land by CPO or, we hope, by agreement, should it see fit to do so. However, the vesting orders will complete the transference of ownership of the existing parcels of land.
I cannot comment on any determination by the Secretary of State without knowing the circumstances. However, my right hon. Friend is as keen as anyone to see that the development is not hindered in any way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said that the land should not be developed purely for warehousing and other facilities associated with the port. It is the corporation's objective to encourage any enterprise for which this would by a suitable site, and certainly not to limit its scope of inquiry or development prospects to those types of warehousing or other operations with which my right hon. Friend is familiar.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) raised some more fundamental questions. In particular, he asked whether the work of the urban development corporation would be enough to attract private sector development and the wide range of industries that he, in common with all others connected with Merseyside, would wish to see. I must remind him that the urban development corporation is not the only means by which industrial development will be attracted to Merseyside. he will be aware of the enterprise zone at Speke, and will know that that is the part of Merseyside that will attract the most favourable tax provisions.
That is not the case with the UDC. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that when completed, the UDC will offer an extremely advantageous industrial site at the very centre of the city. If its river frontage, communications and access are properly and aggressively marketed, the UDC should be able to attract substantial private-sector involvement. At least one developer is already in discussion with the UDC about a certain portion of the lands under consideration tonight.
A free port has not been seriously considered. There are some limitations and restrictions on such a prospect within the EEC. It is not fair to compare the complex at Shannon—which is not only a free port but a substantial industrial development run by the Republic of Ireland—with the free port that has been described. The comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends are indicative of the fact that those who are involved with the hideous problems surrounding Merseyside welcome the

prospect of land being vested in the UDC. Although we set out tonight with a small beginning—vesting 508 acres in this way—we have sure foundations on which to build. I trust that the orders will meet with the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Local Authorities) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Resolved,
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Mersey Docks and Harbour Company) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Mersey Docks and Harbour Company No. 2) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Mersey Docks and Harbour Company No. 3) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.

AGRICULTURE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19 June, be approved.—[Mr. Berry.]

Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during proceedings on the matter of the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. J. I. C. Flint (Pension)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. John Wilkinson: I should like to raise the case of the British Rail pension of my constituent, Mr. J. I. C. Flint. Mr. Flint wrote to me about this problem almost exactly two years ago, on 18 July 1979. At that time he was on the point of receiving formal notice of termination of his employment from British Rail. He received that formal notice on 26 July 1979.
Mr. Flint joined the London Midland and Scottish Railway in 1942, as an engineering apprentice. When LMS was taken over and became part of British Railways—on nationalisation in 1948—he continued serving in British Rail. Mr. Flint joined the LMS railway for training as a professional mechanical engineer, and to do that he had to join as an engineering apprentice. He was 17 years of age when he joined, and as an apprentice was put on the wages staff. When he had completed all his training, he was transferred to the salaried staff. Thus, at the age of 23, he became eligible to join the LMS superannuation fund, which he did.
To achieve the normal maximum pension through the LMS fund, it was necessary to have been a member of the fund for 40 years. In Mr. Flint's case that meant that he could retire on full pension at any time after the age of 63. If, however, Mr. Flint had started as a junior clerk when he joined the LMS, he could have built up his 40 years of reckonable service by the age of 57.
At that time, in his earlier years of service on the railway, that matter seemed to him of no special importance as most people worked through to the normal retirement age of 65 and he had no special reason to think that he would be different. However, circumstances changed and British Rail had to shed staff and he found himself, at the age of 54, with every probability that he would be made redundant when he was 55. Under the terms of the redundancy agreement with British Rail he could have his pension made up to an equivalent age 60, but that was only 37 years in the fund and arose through no fault of his own.
Mr. Flint asked British Rail to allow him to buy added years in the fund. He knew others had been allowed to do that and had done so. However, in Mr. Flint's case British Rail refused. The grounds that British Rail gave were that it was a facility offered only to higher paid grades and that it did not allow back-dating to an age earlier than 30. I believe that to be unfair and discriminatory. I do not see why British Rail should give preference to higher paid staff.
The LMS pension fund was set up by an Act of Parliament—the London Midland and Scottish Railway (Superannuation Fund) Act 1924. That Act has, to my knowledge, been amended only once, in 1941, in a minor way. In schedule 12, which refers to added years of membership, there are stated the conditions that apply to my constituent's case:
In the case of any salaried officer who has been or may hereafter be specially appointed on account of professional or other particular qualifications including a salaried officer transferred from the wages staff … the directors may at any time by resolution at the request of such member direct that such number of years I not exceeding ten) as the directors may by such resolution specify be added to the actual years of his contribution

to the Fund or any superannuation fund of any company whose undertaking now forms part of the undertaking of the Company for the purpose of determining the superannuation and capital allowances".
It cannot be said that LMS took over BR, as it was the other way round. LMS was subsumed in British Rail when the assets of the constituent companies of BR were vested upon nationalisation. But implicitly there is an obligation upon British Rail to meet in full the provisions of that schedule, albeit they have an element of discretion in them which is understood and the board is entitled to exercise that discretion.
My constituent quite properly and reasonably referred these matters to his superiors, and a long correspondence ensued. However, the correspondence had no satisfactory outcome, which led to the correspondence with myself. I took up the case with the chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker. The first reply that I received was unsatisfactory. None the less, I shall summarise some of the points that he made.
First, it was stated:
Mr. Flint retires on 28 December 1979, which is his 55th birthday and his pension will be based on the period of just over 32 years since 22 December 1947 that he has been a member of the LMSR section of the British Railways Superannuation Fund … Mr. Flint indicates"—
and I have explained how he did that—
that if he had started as a junior clerk rather than an apprentice he would have been admitted immediately to the Superannuation Fund. This is not strictly true as, with few exceptions, the former Railway Companies did not enter staff into the funds during the war and they were therefore in the same position as apprentices.
There are, as a result, many personnel in Mr. Flint's position with unpensionable periods of employment at the beginning of their careers. Although this is unfortunate, with limited funds we are unable to do anything about it.
I looked into the reply carefully and took my constituent's advice on it. In his advice to me Mr. Flint is clear that Sir Peter was giving me misleading information. First, it was right that Mr. Flint joined as an engineering apprentice in 1942, but he completed his apprenticeship and became qualified on 28 December 1945 and not in 1947, as stated in Sir Peter's letter.
With regard to wartime service, the issue is not one about staff who came in on a non-permanent basis during a period of emergency, even if they were made permanent at a later date and are still with BR. The point that I am taking up on behalf of my constituent is comparing clerks with engineers, and that issue was valid before, during and after the war.
I was suspicious about numbers, and wrote to Sir Peter asking him to state the facts and explain how many people would be eligible to buy extra years if those in Mr. Flint's position were given the right to do so. After a decent interval I received a reply, which again was interesting. Sir Peter said:
Whilst the number of people in Mr. Flint's position is not known precisely, potentially it is not insignificant.
If it is not known precisely, I am at a loss to understand how it can be potentially not insignificant. Also, how can the chairman be as clear as he was that:
quite simply the current cash restraint on the Board prevents us, unfortunately, from contemplating any relaxation of our policy"?
The matter of back-dating entry into the LMSR superannuation fund has no connection with whether Mr. Flint was to be made redundant or was merely retiring early. He was seeking to exercise what appeared to be his right, enshrined in legislation, to buy additional years regardless of his date of retirement simply because the rules of the fund allowed him to do so, and because entry


into the fund was delayed by his training as a mechanical engineer, which he had to do as wages staff and not as a salaried employee. On the question of numbers, Mr. Flint suggested that probably fewer than 10 people were in the same potential situation.
These matters are so important that I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State because I was not satisfied. I could not take Mr. Flint's case to the Ombudsman, because one is not allowed to do that on the personnel management policy of a nationalised industry or on individual cases. My hon. and learned Friend replied:
I am afraid I must first explain that Mr. Flint's difficulty with his pension is not a matter in which this Department can intervene. It is clear from the rules of the LMSR Superannuation Fund … that a decision on whether or not to grant added years is a matter for the British Rail Board alone.
I am sure"—
and I know that my hon. and learned Friend wrote this in good faith—
that in considering their decision they will have taken account of all the relevant facts, to which I do not of course have access.
We have seen that in a number of respects there was at least confusion over the relevant facts. By virtue of the fact that I have had to keep writing to the chairman, I doubt whether all the relevant aspects have been considered. My hon. and learned Friend continued:
As you will appreciate it is not this Government's policy to intervene in the day-to-day management of the British Railways Board and the conditions and terms of service are very definitely such an area. That being so"—
—my hon. and learned Friend concluded—
Mr. Flint's pension, so far as this Department is concerned, must remain a matter between Mr. Flint and the Board.
I received a further letter in the spring of last year, which showed that my constituent was still dissatisfied. He did not think it right that discretion should be exercised favourably for those on higher salary ranges while those more lowly paid did not have such a discretion. As for the financial constraints, the British Railways Board never satisfied me, at any rate, as to how many other people could potentially exercise this right. The Board was niggardly and unimaginative and I think that my constituent was hard done by. That is why I had no alternative, but to have recourse to this Adjournment debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his good fortune in having the Adjournment debate this evening and on his persistence in pressing the case of his constituent, Mr. Flint, about whose pension entitlement I know that my hon. Friend feels so strongly.
My hon. Friend has already said that I first came into this matter in February this year, when he wrote to me a lengthy letter setting out his constituent's case. He told me then that that letter followed correspondence that he described as a long and totally unsatisfactory battle with the British Railways board on behalf of his constituent. I wrote back explaining that in my opinion this was a matter entirely within the responsibility of the British Railways Board and that Ministers could not intervene.
My hon. Friend remains dissatisfied and he has taken the step, quite properly, of tabling the matter for debate this evening.
I have a high regard for my hon. Friend, with whom I have a friendly acquaintance, going back to well before we both entered this House in 1970. As he remained dissatisfied, I have made more inquiries into the case and examined it in more detail than I did when I replied to him before, when, as I said, I had no access to the facts.
I regret to say that, much as I should like to help my hon. Friend and his constituent, I am not able to come up with an answer that will meet the case that he puts forward. I shall go into the matter in some detail, as I am now fully apprised of all the facts. The basic position—I shall have to repeat what I said in my letter to my hon. Friend—is that this matter falls within the day-to-day responsibility of the British Railways Board and is not one in which the Government can have any responsibility.
Having looked at the facts with which the board has provided me, it seems to me that British Rail is entitled, within the rules of the pension fund, to adopt the policy that it has adopted and is perfectly entitled to exercise its discretion in the manner in which it has.
If my hon. Friend is pressing—as he is very strongly—for British Rail to exercise its discretion in a way that is more favourable to his constituent, that would involve British Rail and its pension fund possibly in considerable expenditure, not only towards Mr, Flint but towards many other people with similar cases that could be argued. Frankly, there is no way in which the funds can be found for such expenditure, either from the pension fund or from British Rail's own resources. That is the disappointing outline of the case, and I shall hope at least to satisfy my hon. Friend that that argument is sustainable in more detail.
I shall not deal at great length with the general relationship between the British Railways Board and the Secretary of State for Transport in regard to the day-to-day management of the railways and the way in which that relationship impinges on pension entitlements. The relationship between the Secretary of State for Transport and the British Railways Board, under all Governments since the railways were nationalised, has been essentially an arm's length one, and all Governments have taken the view that it is not for the Government to interfere in the day-to-day management of the railway.
It is, of course, possible for controversy to exist on the question where the general policy oversight of Government ends and day-to-day management begins, but I must repeat to my hon. Friend my view that any Government would have to say that the pension entitlements of individual employees of the railways very definitely fall within the realm of day-to-day management. It is the board that has the expertise in this field, through its large pensions department, staffed by professional people to whom it can turn for advice.
The pensions are admimistered after discussions that are held between British Rail and the management committees of the pensions funds. Those committees include representatives of the work force and the trade unions as well as representatives of the management and advisers on the investment policy of the fund.
The pension entitlement of individual employees, just as any other terms and conditions of the employment of individual employees of the British Railways Board, must fall within the realm of the day-to-day management of the railway and are not matters in which Ministers could intervene.
Given my hon. Friend's deep dissatisfaction with the position concerning his constituent's case, I have not allowed the matter to rest there. British Rail has not sheltered be hind anything and has provided me with the information upon which I can explain the policy which it has adopted.
With regard, first, to the board's pension arrangements in general, one can only say that they are exceedingly complex. Indeed, I have made that statement in the House on several occasions before, because, in a quite separate context, the British Rail pension arrangements have been raised in two pieces of legislation, even in the short time that we have been in office since 1979.
The reason why the pension arrangements are so complex is that the board has inherited and has continued to manage a large number of pension schemes from the old, independent railway companies, including the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, which was nationalised in 1948. Since that time, it has gone on to establish new schemes. It is significant and relevant to this case that in 1967 there was set up the British Railways (Wages Grades) Pension Fund, which gave many tens of thousands of wages grade employees the opportunity to participate in an a occupational pension scheme for the first time. Before that it was largely salaried staff who had pensions. At the last count, the board was managing about 60 different schemes, although many of them have long been closed to new entrants.
At the end of 1980 the board employed a total of just under 240,000 staff. Although I do not have the precise figures, the vast majority were members of one or other of the pension schemes. Benefits were in payment to more than 120,000 pensioners. I quote those figures to demonstrate the immense task that British Rail's pensions department and trustees and management committees of the funds have undertaken in sorting out everyone's pension entitlement. To discover the pension entitlement of any individual pensioner among those large numbers of people and large numbers of schemes, one has to examine the rules of the particular pension fund itself. That is the case over the whole field of occupational pensions, both in the public and private sectors. Entitlement depends on the rules of the scheme.
Mr. Flint's case rests on the rules of one fund—the London, Midland and Scottish Railway superannuation fund. My hon. Friend has gone into the case in some detail. Mr. Flint entered the employment of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company in 1942, at the age of 17, as an engineering apprentice, which was then a wages grade. At that time, no pension arrangements were made for wages grade employees in Mr. Flint's position, a fact of which he was presumably unaware. At the age of 17, he was probably not much concerned. Like any 17-year-old, as my hon. Friend remarked, he was probably expecting a full lifetime career ahead of him.
In 1947, Mr. Flint was appointed to a salaried post. That post was superannuable and on 22 December that year he was admitted to the appropriate pension fund for his new grade—the LMSR superannuation fund. He left the service of the British Railways Board in January 1980 under its redundancy and resettlement arrangements. His pension entitlements in the LMSR superannuation fund are thus based on 32 years' membership.
As my hon. Friend clearly explained, Mr. Flint now wishes to purchase additional years pension benefits to make up his entilement to 37 years—the number that he

would have had if he had started his career in a post that was superannuable. He contends that British Rail should allow him to purchase such additional years under rule 12 of the LMSR superannuation fund rules. The relevant rule was accurately quoted by my hon. Friend. It makes clear that the board—the successors of the old LMS—has discretion to allow such additional years to be purchased.
It is clear from the rule that the managers of the pension fund and British Rail have a complete discretion whether or not to allow the puchase of additional years. They may grant added years, but it is for them to decide. It is, I fear, not possible to challenge whether that was a valid rule when it was first created, or to challenge on the question why the LMS did not allow its wages staff to enter a fund whereas the salaried staff did back in 1940s. One has to go back to criticise the management of the then LMS and the then prevailing pension arrangements. It is far too late to correct them now. It is only a discretion, and British Rail is within its rights not to allow the purchase if it so decides.
My hon. Friend asks why the board should consider refusing a request. Why does it not exercise its discretion? The answer, given by the board, is, simply but fairly, money. Rule 12 of the fund states the sums which the member of the scheme must pay in the event that he is allowed to purchase additional years. It says:
The Company shall also contribute a like amount on his behalf.
In other words, for every added year that the board grants, it incurs a cost. If Mr. Flint was the only person in his position, I am sure that the board would be more than willing to grant the additional years. He is not.
The board has been able to give me some estimate of the number of people in a similar position. It estimates that in 1974 there were about 30,000 people in various superannuation funds in precisely the same position. The board could not afford to grant added years to all those employees who started in non-pensionable wages grades and later transferred to the salaried staff. The funded pension scheme has never had sufficient funds to provide for those additional benefits, so it would have to fund them now. As I have said, there were about 30,000 people in that position in 1974.
The board has not automatically dismissed the idea of granting any years to anybody. It has considered what it can afford from its own resources and developed a policy that allows it to cut its coat to suit its financial cloth. Using the power of discretion that the rule allows it, the board works on the basis that it will allow a maximum of 10 added years or such lesser number as would take the member's notional date of entry to the fund back to his thirtieth birthday. For staff in the senior officer or higher grades the board takes the notional date of the entry back to the member's twentieth birthday. This is day-to-day management and I do not comment upon that policy. I am not in a position to do so. It seems that the board must have a policy to restrict fairly severely the financial consequences of granting additional years to anybody. It has to select priorities. It has chosen its priorities and Mr. Flint disagrees with its decision.
The board had to be as fair as it could be among various groups. If it were to make an exception of Mr. Flint and grant him added years, it would I am sure feel morally obliged to treat similarly its many other employees or ex-employees in the same position. That would in itself be expensive. Could it in all conscience do that without


treating similarly the many thousands of wages grade employees to whom I have already referred who had no pensionable service before 1967 though their employment may have stretched back many years before that? Mr. Flint is luckier than some of them. He was able to transfer from a wages grade to salaried staff and he has at least 32 years' pensionable service.
There are 133,000 other employees who were in the wages grades before 1967 who the board estimates are

excluded from between 20 and 25 years of service before that year. That is non-pensionable service by the prevailing rules of the fund.
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend. I fear that it would be expensive to make an exception of Mr. Flint. Many others would be involved if the board exercised discretion in this instance. The board is entitled to exercise discretion. It has had to consider the funds that are available. The issue is outside the responsibility of the Government and I cannot offer to intervene.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at 12 minutes past Twelve o' clock.